Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dealing with complexity: Elaboration of a suitable Information System Development at
AUT Business School using Soft Systems Methodology
Hans-Jürgen Arz
A dissertation submitted to
AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Business (MBus)
2007
FACULTY OF BUSINESS
Primary Supervisor: Dr. Terry Nolan
II
To
Melanie, my parents and my grandmother
III
Contents
Attestation of Authorship................................................................................. IX
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... X
Confidential Material......................................................................................... XI
Key Terms ....................................................................................................... XIII
Abstract .................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction......................................................................................... 2
1.1. Purpose and focus of the study...................................................................... 3
1.2. Importance of the research.............................................................................. 4
1.3. Research Problem ............................................................................................ 4
1.4. Brief explanation of methodology used to address the problem................. 6
1.5. Contributions and possible Implications ....................................................... 6
1.6. Limitations of the study ................................................................................... 7
2. Literature Review................................................................................ 8
2.1. Information System Fundamentals................................................................. 8 2.1.1. Evolution of Information Systems.............................................................................. 9 2.1.2. Levels of decision making ......................................................................................... 11 2.1.3. Overview /Types of Information Systems.................................................................. 13 2.1.4. Link between Knowledge Management and Information Systems............................ 16
2.2. Information Management ................................................................................. 17 2.2.1. What is Information Management? ........................................................................... 172.2.2. Using information for a competitive advantage ......................................................... 20
2.3. Data / File Management................................................................................... 21 2.3.1. Data Storage and Processing.................................................................................... 21 2.3.2. File transferring and sharing...................................................................................... 22
2.4. Information Systems Development................................................................. 24 2.4.1. Systems analysis and design .................................................................................... 24 2.4.2. Key systems development concepts ......................................................................... 27
IV
2.4.2.1. Strengths and Weaknesses of traditional Development concepts.................. 30
2.4.2.2. Alternative Development methods.................................................................. 32 2.4.3. Success and Failure of IS-D..................................................................................... 39 2.4.4. Information Systems Development at the Business School..................................... 40
3. Introduction to AUT’s Environment .................................................. 41
3.1. Auckland University of Technology................................................................ 41
3.2. Relationship between the Business School and Information Systems....... 42
3.3. Knowledge Management at AUT ..................................................................... 43
3.4. File Record Management at AUT..................................................................... 44
3.5. Link between AUT’s Knowledge Management and Information Systems... 47
3.6. AACSB requirements for Information Systems.............................................. 48
3.7. Information to share .......................................................................................... 54
4. Methodology......................................................................................... 56
4.1. Soft Systems Methodology............................................................................... 57 4.1.1. Using the CATWOE model to define root definitions................................................. 59 4.1.2. Rich pictures............................................................................................................... 60 4.1.3. Conceptual model....................................................................................................... 61
4.2. Methodology of recruiting participants ........................................................... 62
4.3. Procedure........................................................................................................... 63
4.4. Ethical risks for the participants ...................................................................... 68
5. Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 68
5.1. Introduction to the currently used IS at the Business School....................... 68
5.2. Evaluation of the Interviews ............................................................................. 69 5.2.1. A - Who are the actors?.............................................................................................. 70 5.2.2. PQR - Formula and Transformation ........................................................................... 71 5.2.3. C – Who are the clients of transformed data?............................................................ 75 5.2.4. O - Who are the owners? ........................................................................................... 77 5.2.5. E - Environment.......................................................................................................... 77 5.2.6. W - Weltanschauung .................................................................................................. 78 5.2.7. Justification for the use of the systems ...................................................................... 82 5.2.8. Evaluation of the identified user requirements ........................................................... 88 5.2.9. Root Definition ............................................................................................................ 91
V
6. Discussion of Results ........................................................................ 93
6.1. Findings............................................................................................................. 93
6.2. Contributions and Implications....................................................................... 97
6.3. Validating the Research Model........................................................................102
6.4. Limitations and Implications for further Research........................................ 103
7. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 105
7.1. Summary of Research Findings...................................................................... 105
7.2. Implications for Management .......................................................................... 106
8. References........................................................................................... 107
VI
Figures
FIGURE 1 THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL ROLES OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS ........................ 9
FIGURE 2 THE EVOLUTION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS........... 11
FIGURE 3 LEVELS OF AN ORGANISATION........................................................................ 12
FIGURE 4 TYPES OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS ................................................................ 14
FIGURE 5 ORGANISATIONAL BOUNDARY SPANNING INFORMATION SYSTEMS.................... 15
FIGURE 6 TRANSFORMATION OF DATA INTO KNOWLEDGE ............................................... 18
FIGURE 7 CHAIN OF COMPONENTS IN AN INFORMATION SYSTEM ..................................... 19
FIGURE 8 COMPONENTS OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS ..................................................... 19
FIGURE 9 MAJOR TYPES OF DATABASES........................................................................ 23
FIGURE 10 A TYPICAL LOCAL AREA NETWORK (LAN) .................................................... 24
FIGURE 11 OPTIONS FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION SYSTEMS ........................................ 26
FIGURE 12 THE FIVE STEP SYSTEMS APPROACH ............................................................ 26
FIGURE 13 THE FOUR STEP DEVELOPMENT APPROACH OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS........... 27
FIGURE 14 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE........................................................... 29
FIGURE 15 WATERFALL METHOD OF SYSTEMS............................................................... 30
FIGURE 16 THE SPIRAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT........................................................... 30
FIGURE 17 JAD ENVIRONNENT ..................................................................................... 34
FIGURE 18 AN EXAMPLE OF A RICH PICTURE TO DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENT OF
MARKETING FUNCTIONS ............................................................................... 36
FIGURE 19 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DSDM AND SDLC APPROACH ................................. 38
FIGURE 20 THE AACSB ACCREDITATION TIMELINE........................................................ 50
FIGURE 21 AACSB REQUIREMENTS FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS UNDER ONE ROOF...... 54
FIGURE 22 THE SEVEN STAGES OF THE SSM APPROACH.................................. 58
FIGURE 23 CATWOE MODEL.................................................................................... 60
FIGURE 24 AN EXAMPLE OF A CONCEPTUAL MODEL.......................................... 61
FIGURE 25 THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS.... 66
FIGURE 26 CONVENTIONS OF THE BUSINESS SCHOOL’S SYSTEMS TO
SHARE FILES........................................................................................... 86
FIGURE 27 ENTITY RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAM ....................................................... 96
FIGURE 28 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF A NEW FILE SHARING SYSTEM............... 98
FIGURE 29 RECOMMENDATIONS TO CREATE AN INFORMATION AND
KNOWLEDGE SHARING ENVIRONMENT............................................ 100
VII
Tables TABLE 1 THE FOUR PHASES OF RAPID APPLICATIONS DEVELOPMENT.............................................. 33
TABLE 2 AACB’S 21 ACCREDITATION STANDARDS............................................................................. 52
TABLE 3 BUSINESS SCHOOL’S KNOWLEDGE ASSETS.......................................................................... 56
TABLE 4 USE OF THE FOUR EVALUATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS BY THE INTERVIEWEES............... 85
TABLE 5 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE EVALUATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS......... 87
TABLE 6 IDENTIFIED USER REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................... 88
TABLE 7 EVALUATION OF IDENTIFIED USER REQUIREMENTS WITH THE PROPOSED
CONCEPTUAL MODEL.......................................................................................................... 99
TABLE 8 EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCH AIMS............................................................106
VIII
Appendices APPENDIX 1 AACSB INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION PROCESS.................................................... 110
APPENDIX 2 INTERVIEW RECORDS – ACADEMIC STAFF MEMBER, SENIOR LECTURER................... 113
APPENDIX 3 INTERVIEW RECORDS – SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR...................................................... 115
APPENDIX 4 INTERVIEW RECORDS – SENIOR MANAGER (#1)......................................................... 117
APPENDIX 5 INTERVIEW RECORDS – SENIOR MANAGER (#2)......................................................... 119
APPENDIX 6 INTERVIEW RECORDS – IT MANAGER (#1).................................................................. 121
APPENDIX 7 INTERVIEW RECORDS – IT MANAGER (#2).................................................................. 123
Attestation of Authorship IX
Attestation of Authorship
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by
another person (except where explicit defined in the acknowledgements), nor
material which to a substantial extent has been submitted for the award of any other
degree or diploma of a university or other institution or higher learning.
_________________________
(Signature)
Hans-Jürgen Arz
X
Acknowledgments This dissertation could not have been written without the help and support and
participation and collaboration of a number of people.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. Terry Nolan, for
his intellectual support and guidance throughout the course of my work on this
dissertation.
I extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to all colleagues who agreed to
participate in, and provide data for, this research. Your candour and valuable
contribution enabled this study to be completed.
My additional gratitude is expressed to my manager and friend, Agnes Naera.
Without your provided flexibility in my work time, this study could not have been
completed within this short time constraint.
I want also to express my thanks to my parents and grandmother, who supported me
throughout all the years of my study and enabled me to undertake this Master’s
study in New Zealand.
I also want to thank Petrea Barker for her commercial service in the proof reading of
the final document.
My special appreciation to Auckland University of Technology Ethics Committee
(AUTEC) for granting ethics approval to this research. Date of approval: 7
September 2007; Ethics Application Number: 07/133
Finally, I would like to express a special acknowledgement to my partner, Melanie,
for her moral support and encouragement and for being understanding of the long
hours I spend on this research.
Confidential Material XI
Confidential Material
This research elicits and analyses information, such as operational processes and
issues identified are classified as confidential and therefore should not be publicly
disseminated to the Business School’s students, customers, allied business
organisations or competitors.
XII
Key Terms
1, 3, 4, 24, 48-52, 54, 110
1, 7, 59-61, 65, 67-72, 91-94, 102-105
34, 61, 65, 97, 98
14
7, 32, 33, 37
82, 89-91, 95, 97, 100, 103, 105, 123
10
10, 14
1, 3, 49, 50, 67, 68
62, 63, 71-76, 89-97, 102, 106, 121
3, 17, 20, 21, 62, 65, 70, 81, 101, 123
7, 32, 33
2, 8, 15-17, 43-47, 55, 63, 81, 104, 108
10, 14
13-15
7, 37
13, 14
7, 32, 35
7, 32, 33
44-47
67, 74-78, 91, 93, 102-105
1, 7, 59, 61, 65-69, 71-75, 91-93, 103-05
1, 7, 56, 57, 63, 102
6, 27-32, 38
1, 4, 7, 29, 33-41, 64-69, 78, 86-106, 123
AACSB ………………………………...……………...
CATWOE ……………………………………………..
Conceptual model …………………………………...
Decision support systems (DSS) …………………..
Dynamic Systems Development (DSDM) …………
Enterprise Document Management System ………
Enterprise resource planning systems (ERP) …….
Executive information systems (EIS)……………….
File and knowledge sharing system ……………….
Information architecture ……………………………..
Information Management ……………………………
Joint Applications Development (JAD) …………….
Knowledge Management ……………………………
Management information systems (MIS) ………….
Management Support Systems (MSS) …………….
Object-Oriented Systems Development (OOSD) ...
Operations Support Systems (OSS) ……………….
Prototyping Systems Development ………………..
Rapid Applications Development (RAD) …………..
Record Management ………………………………..
Rich Picture …………………………………………..
Root Definition ………………………………………..
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) …………………
Systems development life cycle (SDLC) …………..
User requirements …………………………………...
30, 35 Waterfall method ……………………………………..
1
Abstract
As a result of an initial assessment of Auckland University of Technology’s (AUT) application
for accreditation to AACSB International (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business), one of the single most important issues identified was the management and
development of an ‘Information System’ (IS) to increase the productivity and efficiency of the
daily business at AUT’s Business School. Firstly, this study attempts to identify, through
qualitative interviews with selected staff members of AUT’s Business School, user
requirements for a file sharing information system. Adopting Soft Systems Methodology,
Checkland’s (2006) proposed ‘CATWOE’ model, rich picture and root definitions are used to
elicit and evaluate the users’ system requirements. Secondly, by using Checkland’s
proposed tools, this study strives to evaluate the information systems currently used at AUT
(“I-Drive”, “Novell GroupWise”, “Knowledge Base” and “Wiki-Software”). The systems are
evaluated in terms of possibilities and restrictions of sharing information through expanding
to a ‘file and knowledge sharing’ system that meets the identified user requirements. Thirdly
a realisability analysis is performed to determine the implications of the user requirements
(identified through interviews) upon an existing information system or a new system. Finally,
to provide a solution for the identified issues and given recommendations, a ‘conceptual
model’ (Checkland P, 2006) is developed.
Findings from this study indicate that information and file sharing at AUT Business School is
at a sub-optimal level of performance. The prime reasons for this problem appear to lie with
‘soft’ organisational issues, including the organisation’s culture, together with a lack of set
operational standards and regulations, rather than with the information systems themselves.
Due to the confidential nature of this inquiry, the names and titles of interviewees have been
disguised.
2
2
1. Introduction
More than 50 years ago the first economist predicted a change from an ‘Industrial and
mechanized age’ into an ‘Information age’, where the possibility of accessing new
information and knowledge will become a key driver of social and economic growth.
Although production and manufacturing of goods is still very important nowadays, the
majority of workers are involved in the creation, maintenance, distribution, modification
and application of information to generate and access new knowledge (G. Elliott,
2004). According to Back (2005) the two most important social and economic changes
in the twenty-first century will probably be the transition to a “knowledge society” and a
global “knowledge economy”. The increase in demand for innovations resulting from
these changes in the global knowledge economy will require the development of new
management tools and methods to serve the demand for innovative and knowledge
intensive products. Since innovation is reported to have become the primary key factor
for successful and continuous growth, efficient knowledge management tools and
methods have become essential for companies in every industry sector (Rollett, 2003).
The increasing complexity of both the environment in which companies operate and the
pressure of offering cheaper products or services by increasing their innovativeness in
short operating times, make knowledge a central issue of business success nowadays.
Managing knowledge has become a key issue in increasing the efficient use of land,
labour and capital resources (Probst, 1998).
According to Dalkir (2005), Knowledge Management can be addressed from two
different perspectives. The first is focused on the people, the organisations and the
associated working and communication processes. In turn, the second perspective
focuses on the management and development of the effective use of information
technology to provide knowledge to anyone who needs to perform a specific task
effectively and efficiently (Dalkir, 2005). To fulfil this requirement Jennex (2005)
suggests in his case studies a well structured and smooth integration of knowledge
management methods, tools and systems in the form of ‘Information Systems’ has to
be implemented in companies.
3
3
1.1. Purpose and focus of the study
As a result of an initial assessment of AUT’s application for accreditation to AACSB
International (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business), one of the
single most important issues identified was the management and development of an
‘information system’ (IS) to increase the productivity and efficiency of the daily business
at AUT’s Business School. The cause of the problem was considered to be the lack of
naming standards and version control of documents and data within the current IS
causing difficulties for staff members to find and retrieve the appropriate and required
version of a document or information. This problem is thought to reduce the quality of
decision making and to reduce the levels of service both to students and internal clients
(staff).
In order to improve decision making and services to students and internal clients, this
dissertation reflects the role of information technology in Information Management.
Furthermore it will evaluate AUT’s current IS to determine the possibilities for
expanding to a ‘file and knowledge sharing’ system (“I-drive”, “Novell GroupWise”,
“Knowledge Base” and “Wiki-Software”). As a part of this evaluation it will attempt to
define staff member requirements and to investigate models for developing an
information system. Finally, it will attempt to highlight the processes the Business
School will have to undergo before an information system can be purchased and
implemented.
Accordingly, this dissertation will evaluate current information systems used within the
Business School to determine the possibilities for expanding to a ‘file and knowledge
sharing’ system though “I-drive”, “Novell GroupWise”, “Knowledge Base” or the “Wiki-
Software”.
The Aims of this study have been defined as follow:
1. To assess AACSB requirements in terms of increasing organisational
performance, through an appropriate information system that ensures a
consistent and secure file, information and knowledge sharing with staff
members.
2. The study also strives to assess the needs of individual staff members, in
order to share files and information on a daily basis.
4
4
3. To determine which of the current IS at AUT is most suitable and what
modifications will need to be made to fulfil all user requirements.
4. To make recommendations for the modification of the existing IS system or to
provide a list of systems requirements that can be used as a guideline for
decisions regarding the purchase of a new IS. (Note: this study does not
attempt to purchase, evaluate or implement a new software solution).
Following the above listed aims this research should
have defined which information has to be shared
define users’ system requirements
identify current technical restrictions of sharing information
highlight possible modifications of current used Information Systems or identify
whether a new Information System has to be purchased to meet the defined
user requirements
1.2. Importance of the research
The Auckland University of Technology (AUT) Business School needs to amass a very
large information resource in order to manage application to become AACSB
accredited. Current information systems are inadequate for the task and a new system
needs to be designed and implemented as swiftly as possible in order to expedite the
process. The information to be stored and accessed includes a unique mixture of
types, including faculty academic publications and research activity, faculty teaching
loads and assessments, student numbers, student learning experiences and course
structures, administrative files, as well as the more typical financial performance
materials.
1.3. Research Problem
This study is in not intended to be critical of how the shared electronic work
environment at the Business School has been managed to date. The intention is to
facilitate changes that are necessary for the development of a sustainable information
system that is a determined business tool to meet the following current issues at AUT’s
Business faculty:
5
5
it is not visible what files and information exist in order to share knowledge
information stored on personal drives is not accessible to those who need it
when the individual is ill or out of office
creation of duplicated files have been stored in different locations and under
different names
loss of transparency because any staff member may create new directories and
sub-directories in the “I-drive”
information and knowledge is being isolated because it is saved in individual
drives
not all staff members have access to the same parts of the shared drive which
hinders group work
the need to protect personal and sensitive information
There are four main reasons why AUT should manage its data in an optimised
Information System. Firstly, to ensure the data is available whenever it is required.
Secondly, to make sure the requested data is current. Thirdly, enable the finding of
accurate data. The final, and one of the most important reasons, is to make sure the
data is secure (Nickerson, 1998). Thus establishing effective business rules around
managing electronic workspace can increase efficiency and support collaboration.
Specifically, clear business rules and standardised processes around managing
electronic shared work environment can:
reduce the duplication of files and outdated copies
increase access to information and stored knowledge
reduce the amount of “isolated” information
secure confidential documents
enable new staff to locate and procure information they need
encourage staff to work as team members within the whole organisation
and most important: secure and improve the maintenance of AUT’s intellectual
knowledge by transferring individual knowledge when a staff member leaves
AUT
6
6
1.4. Brief explanation of methodology used to address the problem
This MBus dissertation is primarily exploratory research and more based on inductive
rather than on deductive research. Taking a social-constructivist epistemology it
assumes that an information system is developed by actors based upon individual and
shared understandings of its aim and purpose. The procedure for this study consists of
several phases which have to be undertaken to examine the process of an Information
System development life cycle.
This study will use semi-structured interviews with a selected group of staff members in
order to examine individual staff members’ needs and requirements of sharing files and
information on a daily basis with a new information system or the current information
systems used at AUT. The staff members for the interviews have been selected on the
basis of their usage or management of the information system or for their technical
expertise.
1.5. Contributions and possible Implications
The traditional approach of Information Systems Development processes is known as
the “waterfall” or “systems development life cycle” (SDLC) approach (G. Elliott, and
Starkings, S, 1998) (p. 61). This technique was based on structured and sequential
development stages. Each stage of the life cycle had to be completed before the
developers could move on to the next stage. The requirement of completing element by
element in the development chain was time consuming, expensive and often resulted
in missing specified development goals and users’ requirements (Jessup, 1999).
However, the traditional SDLC approach has evolved over the last 40 years through
the development of applications software which has enabled the involvement of
information systems users in the information systems development process. These
alternative approaches consider a high involvement of human activities in most
business systems which results in unpredictable systems. Thus, in the context of the
alternative methods, information systems can not be seen and treated in isolation (J. A.
O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007).
Nowadays there are seven best known alternative approaches to the traditional SDLC
method which utilise and emphasise the importance of humans as systems users in the
development process of information systems. These methods are known as: “Rapid
Applications Development (RAD)”, “Dynamic Systems Development (DSDM)”, “Joint
7
7
Applications Development (JAD)”, “Prototyping Systems Development”, “Object
Oriented Systems Development (OOSD)” and “Business Process Re-engineering” (G.
Elliott, 2004) (p. 101).
Over the course of time the professional role and responsibilities of the traditional
systems analyst and programmer have become merged and are these days carried out
through the systems end user. Accordingly, this study aspires to add knew cognitions
to the body of knowledge in developing information systems at a tertiary education
institution. This research applies Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to examine the
users’ needs for a file sharing information system. This study includes end users in the
development of information systems and evaluating their requirements by using
Checkland’s (1999) proposed CATWOE model, rich pictures and root definitions.
Hence, this study strives to generate valuable findings about the usefulness of the SSM
approach in the above mentioned alternative information systems development
methods. Using a soft systems approach to examine organisational issues might also
help to ensure a higher compliance of business organisation’s requirements and,
furthermore, increase potential wealth and growth generation for tertiary institutions as
well as for corporate businesses.
Besides its contribution to extending the body of knowledge, this study also strives to
improve, through the examination of user requirements and systems evaluation, the
Business School’s use of its information systems. In addition the Business School’s
current knowledge assets will be illustrated and linked with the identified possibilities of
accessing information and knowledge. This collaboration of findings will identify gaps to
be sealed by the ‘new’ information system. This improved information systems’ use will
in turn provide valuable information, promote innovation within the Business School
and increase significantly its use for informed management and strategic decision
making within the business environment.
1.6. Limitations of the study
This research strives to increase the efficiency of the Business School through the
assessment of an information system development process, hence assessing the
possibilities of providing self-service facilities to access and share information amongst
all Business School stakeholders. This study does not develop, maintain and equip
institutional repositories of published research outputs, teaching materials,
8
8
administrative or managerial documentations in order to establish a database for
sharing information and files.
It is also not the objective of this study to provide staff development sessions to keep
staff members up to date in the use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) or
provide support for storage, management and access to locally created data and files.
Nor does this study aim to develop policies or good practices related to the accessibility
of stored data through the current information systems. It also does not intend to
implement a records management at the Business School to comply with the set
objectives of AUT’s knowledge management group or to meet the Public Records Act’s
requirements.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Information System Fundamentals
In order to understand information systems and their functions, we need to examine
first the fundamental ideas and concept of an information system. Nickerson (2001) (p.
4) and Laudon (2002) (p. 11) define, in a wider scope, information systems as “a
collection of components that work together to provide information to help in the
operations and management of an organisation”. Jessup and Valachich (1999) (p. 1:6)
deepen this definition and define information systems as “…combinations of hardware,
software and telecommunications networks, which people build and use to collect,
create, and distribute useful data…”. O’Brien and Marakas (2007) (p. 4) contribute with
their definition of an information system “…as an organised combination of people,
hardware, communications networks, data resources, policies and procedures that
stores, retrieves, transforms, and disseminates information in an organisation”. This is
the most detailed definition of the information systems concept. Therefore this definition
is used in this study to scope the fundamental ideas and concept of information
systems.
O’Brien and Marakas (2007) argue that business professionals nowadays rely on
modern and updated information systems more than on any other technology to
provide the best possible communication, information and knowledge sharing
9
9
environment. The use of a variety of physical devices, software, networks as
communication channels and stored data resources through the use of various
information technologies (ITs) determines the most important components of the
modern information systems.
FIGURE 1 The three fundamental roles of information systems Source: (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007) page 9.
Figure 1 (above) displays the three fundamental roles and the interactions that
business applications information systems carry out in an organisation. The
interactions within these roles allow information systems to support business processes
and operations through providing employees and managers with timely, relevant and
accurate information to enable business decision making to achieve a competitive
advantage (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007).
2.1.1. Evolution of Information Systems
The significant evolution of information systems and their business applications over
the past 50 years is shown in Figure 2 (below). At the beginning of this evolution in the
1960’s, information systems could generally be seen as a simple record-keeping and
data processing system. This concept was also the beginning of the development of
the “management information systems (MIS)” (McNurlin, 1989) (p.220) , which had the
focus of providing managers and end users pre-defined reports. Over the years the
need for ad hoc information and interactive support of the decision making process for
managers and end users grew significantly. Thus information systems developed in the
10
10
1970’s to “decision support systems (DSS)” (G. Elliott, and Starkings, S, 1998) (p. 54).
Over the following years the use of information systems was influenced by the rapid
development of personal computers, application software packages and
telecommunication networks in the 1980's. This dramatic technology change modified
the role of information systems from an indirect support system through a
centralised service department in the organisation to an end user computing
environment. Thus this development had a significant influence on the use and
effectiveness of information systems as data could be stored and accessed by each
end user individually and ad hoc to support their job requirements (Hicks, 1990).
Another significant change occurred also in the mid 1980’s through the development of
“executive information systems (EIS)” (Jessup, 1999) (p. 3:55). This change came
about as a result of request from top executives as they did not directly use either the
reports of the MIS or any analytical tools of the DSS. These executive information
systems were specifically designed to enable corporate executives easy access to the
critical information they want in the reporting format they prefer at any time they
request the information. Through the development and application of artificial
intelligence (AI) techniques in the late 1980’s, information systems started to develop in
a new direction. As a result, “expert systems (ES)” or “Knowledge-based Systems” (G.
Elliott, and Starkings, S, 1998) (p. 58) were developed and could, for the first time,
replace human interventions through the use of artificial intelligence, and there for
serve as consultants by providing expert advice.
At the end of the 1980’s and beginning of 1990’s further development focused more on
the strategic role of information systems. As a result of this review “strategic
information systems (SIS)” (Jessup, 1999) (p. 3:67) were developed with the purpose
to serve as an integrated component of business processes, products and services to
help companies to gain competitive advantage. Through continuous improvement in
the mid 1990’s strategic information systems were then further developed to “enterprise
resource planning systems” (ERP) (J. A. O'Brien, 2004) (p. 235). These ERP systems
enabled, through their integration and use of a common interface for all computer
based functions, data sharing for planning, manufacturing, sales, financial
management, customer relations, human resources and inventory management (Oz,
2006). Through these systems, information could be easily accessed and collaborated
for flexible decision making. Since the beginning of the 21st century the capabilities of
information systems have again dramatically changed. More and more businesses took
advantage of the use of the highly developed internet and intranet technologies which
11
11
enabled the development of fast growing global electronic businesses and commerce
systems (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007).
Although information systems are doing today still the same basic tasks as they did 50
years ago, Figure 2 (below) highlights the dramatic change of computer based
information systems and their impact on end users and managers. Information systems
nowadays still need to process data, keep records and provide management with
accurate and useful information, but what has significantly changed is that businesses
can now have the advantage of a much higher level of integration of system functions
across the organisation, greater connectivity across system components and especially
the ability to atomise data processing, storage and accessibility to take the maximum
strategic opportunities for a maximum competitive advantage. O’Brien and Marakas
(2007) argue that the new direction of information systems development in the 21st
century will probably focus on increasing the speed and reach of other systems to
provide a tighter systems integration combined with greater flexibility.
FIGURE 2 The evolution of Information Systems over the last 50 years Source: (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007) page 11.
2.1.2. Levels of decision making
12
12
As shown in Figure 3 (below) companies in general can be composed of three levels
with enormously different types of activities and informational needs. The following
examination of the fundamental differences between the three levels and their required
information will provide an understanding of why several types of information systems
with different characteristics are needed to provide business organisations with
information for decision making across organisational boundaries (Schultheis, 1995).
FIGURE 3 Levels of an organisation
At the operational level, most enterprises have to deal interactively with customers and
operate the day-to-day business. Information systems used at this level are designed
to automate and increase the efficiency of repetitive activities and processes to
increase customer service (Oz, 2006). Although decisions at the operational level are
relatively straight forward ‘if-then’ decisions, these information systems support
managers with information to make high structured and recurring day-to-day decisions
(Jessup, 1999). Nevertheless, the high automatisation at this level enables systems to
carry decisions automatically out with little or no human intervention.
The second level of the framework shown in Figure 3 (above) determines the
managerial level consisting of tactical systems. Tactical information systems are
designed to summarise, aggregate and analyse stored data. Through the various
generated summary reports, exception reports and ad hoc reports, tactical systems
provide managers with required and necessary information to control processes and
monitor the organisation’s resources (Schultheis, 1995). Tactical information systems
13
13
vary from operational systems in their nature and their basic purpose. Where
operational systems have the purpose to support the execution of operational tasks,
tactical systems help the managers to control the operations (J. A. O'Brien, 2004).
The third level in the framework severs the executive level for strategic planning and
decision making. Information systems for this level are designed to provide executives
with information to assist in setting long term goals and make long term decisions for
the company (McNurlin, 1989). Schultheis (1995) argues that the distinction between
tactical systems and strategic systems is not always easy to make as they refer to the
same data. Schultheis (1995) states the systems can be differentiated by whom the
system is used and for what purpose. Jessup (1999) argues that tactical information
systems are typically used by managers to monitor and control the operations to meet
the operational goals set by the organisation’s executives.
In summary, most organisations consist of operational, managerial and executive
levels with unique activities, special purposes, different data input and required
information as data output. In the next section, different types of information systems
are examined as to their nature and purpose and their support of each organisational
level.
2.1.3. Overview /Types of Information Systems
Conceptually, today’s implemented information systems can be classified in several
ways. However, in the literature, information systems are in general classified in three
major groups. As shown in Figure 4 (below) these conceptual categories are
“Operations Support Systems”, “Management Support Systems”, and “Other Support
Systems” (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007) (p. 13, 15, 16).
14
14
FIGURE 4 Types of Information Systems Source: (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007) page 14.
The role of an operations support system is to update operational databases, produce
business documents, effectively process business transactions, monitor industrial
processes and enhance team and work group communication and collaboration
(Deloitte & Touche, 1998). Although operations support systems process and produce
a variety of internal and external information, these systems can not be used to support
managers with specific required managerial information. In order to provide managers
with adequate information for effective decision making, business organisations use
management support systems. Providing support for managers’ decision making
process can be very complex and therefore requires different types of support systems
(Gordon, 1999). As shown in Figure 4 (above) there are several decision support
systems with different responsibilities: management information system (MIS), decision
support system (DSS), executive information system (EIS) and specialized processing
systems (SPS) (Jessup, 1999).
Whereas management information systems (MIS) provide managers with the
requested information in the form of predefined report lay outs, decision support
systems (DSS) have the role to enable managers direct computer support for
interactive and ad hoc information queries during the decision making process
(Gordon, 1999). For executive decision making, special “executive information systems
(EIS)” have been developed (J. A. O'Brien, 2004) (p. 333). These systems extract the
15
15
information from MIS, DSS and other sources to streamline the information for
executives to display and highlight organisational and competitive performance and
economic developments to support strategic planning.
O’Brien (2004) argues that, besides the operations and management support systems,
several other information systems exist which operate across all decision making
levels. These organisational boundary spanning information systems are illustrated in
Figure 5 (below). Several knowledge based systems such as “expert systems” and
“knowledge management systems” support the creation, modification and distribution
of business knowledge to employees, managers and executives (Schultheis, 1995).
“Functional business systems”, with their support of basic business functions such as
accounting and marketing, also determine operational and managerial functions
(Gordon, 1999). Finally, a business can make use of “strategic information systems”
(Nickerson, 2001) (p. 394) to give the organisation a competitive advantage.
FIGURE 5 Organisational boundary spanning information systems
In theory, conceptual classifications of information systems are only created to illustrate
the different roles and responsibilities they carry out. In practice businesses usually
apply an integrated combination of different roles and types of information systems.
These cross-functional information systems are designed to carry out the basic
business functions, such as record keeping and transaction processing, but also allow
the transformation of information to support decision making on an operational,
managerial and executive level (Schultheis, 1995).
16
16
Nair (1999) espouses that, over time, in most organisations information systems have
often evolved in an informal manner such as in the use of shared computer drives. As a
result, several issues emerge which impede business performance and reduce
productivity. To tackle the challenge of increasing the organisation’s efficiency in
decision making on an operational, tactical and strategic level, several specific
business information system have been developed (Nair, 1999). According to O’Brien
(2007) (p. 13-15) the above described systems can again be broken down into five
information system levels:
1) “individual information systems” - i.e. a personal computer
2) “group information systems” - i.e. e-mail systems
3) “organisational information system” – i.e. an organisational network
4) “inter-organisational information system” - functions among several
organisations
5) “international information system” which allow data transfer within
organisations world wide
2.1.4. Link between Knowledge Management and Information Systems
Describing knowledge as ‘identified, classified and valid information’, Rollet (2003) (p.
7) defines Knowledge Management as a responsible management task which deals
with “knowledge-friendly” environments in which knowledge can “develop and flourish
to provide individuals, organisations or regions with context sensitive Knowledge and
the ability of knowledge workers to apply the knowledge for action”. Nickerson (1998) in
turn divides knowledge into personal and organisational knowledge. Nickerson (1998)
(p. 348) defines personal knowledge as “the understanding a person has gained
through education, discovery, intuition and insight”. Liebowitz (2000) (p. 23)
summarises and defines the total of the personal knowledge of all people who work for
the organisation as “organisational knowledge”. Thus knowledge management is the
process of managing organisational knowledge. Traditional Western epistemology has
defined knowledge from the non-human perspective as an absolute and static entity
(Nonaka, 2000). Nonaka et. al. present knowledge as a dynamic process in context, as
a result of social interactions between “tacit” and “explicit” knowledge amongst
individuals and organisations. “Explicit” knowledge can be expressed verbally, in the
form of data, scientific formula, specifications or manuals and can be easily processed,
transmitted and stored. “Tacit” knowledge, by contrast, is highly personal and hard to
17
17
formalise as this kind of knowledge is very subjective and rooted in intuitions, routines,
ideals, values and emotions. In this way “tacit” and “explicit” knowledge are
complementary, and thus both types of knowledge are essential to knowledge creation.
Hence, knowledge is the interpretation and integration of information in a context by
individuals. Based on this interpretation, Nonaka et. al. (p. 8) re-conceptualised
knowledge as “a dynamic human process of justifying personal belief toward the
‘truth’”. As defined, information systems serve the purpose to process, transform,
interpret and integrate information into knowledge. Thus, over the time several complex
knowledge management systems have been developed as means of acquiring,
organizing, storing, communicating and sharing organizational knowledge (J. A.
O'Brien, 2004).
2.2. Information Management
2.2.1. What is Information Management?
Employees, managers and executives within on organisation, or across several
businesses, deal with various types of information. A car manufacturer might use
information to examine customer preferences in design, service and pricing. A hotel
manager might use information about their guests’ expectations in order to train staff,
develop procedures and respond to customer requests. Lawyers use information to
identify key issues to handle their cases and pending lawsuits.
Already this short introduction emphasises the variety of information, its purpose and
interpretation. In order to understand information better, it is important to realise its
relationship to data. McNurlin and Sprague (1989) (p. 188) define data as “fundamental
facts, figures, observations and measurement, without context or organisation”. Based
on this definition, Gordon (1999) (p. 7) defines information as “processed and
interpreted data – data that has been organised, interpreted, and possibly formatted,
filtered, analysed and summarised”. Based on these definitions, the following example
might illustrate the relationship between data and information a bit better than by
simple definition. A weather station, for example, might report the following data: 233,
1700, 35, 15 NW, 25. If the figures are not imbedded in a context, the figures can be
interpreted in various ways or even remain meaningless to the user. Only through the
placement of these figures in a context does the data result in useful information. Such
a context could be: This is the report of weather station 233, at 17:00 (5 pm), the
18
18
temperature is 35 °C, a wind velocity of 15 mph from north west and a humidity of 25
percent. The creation of information is even more complex as, for the same data,
different contexts can be used which then in return result in different meanings, thus
different information. For example, the figure 100 as data will transform by adding the
context “km” to another meaning than adding the context “bottles of wine”. Even the
use of the same number and the same context can still have different value and
meaning for users. The information of “35 km” has for a marathon athlete a different
interpretation of distance as it has for a pilot. However, as shown in Figure 6 (below),
the transformed data can then be used by employees, managers and executives to
obtain knowledge from information. In the above described weather station example,
information can be interpreted and transformed to knowledge through assimilating and
explaining variations over time. In general, setting data in the right context is very
important to enable knowledge creating and accurate decision making through all
organisational levels.
FIGURE 6 Transformation of data into knowledge Source: (Gordon, 1999) page 7.
Managing information is not simply done through the transformation of data. As shown
in Figure 7 (below), information systems consists of the following components:
information technology, data transformation, procedures for processing data and
people who access, modify and distribute data (Gordon, 1999).
19
19
FIGURE 7 Chain of components in an information system Source: (Gordon, 1999) page 11.
As examined above, information systems process data resources as input into
information products as output. Based on these findings, O’Brien (2004) proposed a
fundamental framework of an information system model, shown in Figure 8 (below).
This framework highlights the relationships among the activities and components of
information systems. The model emphasises software, hardware, network, data and
people as the five basic resources of information systems. Hence, these resources
enable users to perform input, process data, store data and control activities to
transform data resources into information products (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M.,
2007).
FIGURE 8 Components of Information Systems Source: (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007) page 29.
20
20
2.2.2. Using information for a competitive advantage
In the literature it is argued that many companies still use information management as
a backroom operation with the purpose to support the other functions of the business.
Beside Gordon (1999), O’Brien and Marakas (2007) and Schultheis (1995) many other
authors argue that information systems can also be used proactively and strategically
to gain a competitive advantage. Gordon (1999) identifies five key areas of decision
making which enhance and develop a competitive advantage:
reacting to market conditions
improving customer service
controlling costs
improving quality
expanding globally
Increasing a company’s possibilities of monitoring external developments and
innovations through information systems and management will enhance in return the
company’s ability to respond quickly to market conditions, such as changes in demand,
prices, product and service design and content as well as requests for innovative
products and services (Ward, 2000). An example of this is Dell Computer’s demand
management system related to its supply chain. In order to improve customer service a
company has to collect, store, share and monitor information about customers’
expectations and the fulfilment of their needs to prevent failure from poor investments
and the loss of customers (Teng, 1994). For example, good information management
and establishment of appropriate information systems that classify and monitor
spending, ease cost control and thus create a competitive advantage through price
differentiation. Another possibility is that companies can gain advantage through the
use of information systems and information management and therefore improve
quality. The possibility of immediate processing of analysed summary and exception
reports to production workers and managers enables quick interventions to improve
processes and enhance quality assurance (Davenport, 1993). Companies pursuing the
strategy of gaining high market shares through rapid growth in the global market need
appropriate information systems to coordinate and monitor their globally spread
subsidiaries and enhance information and communication flow across all language and
cultural barriers (Neo, 1991).
21
21
Creating a mature information management environment for local operating or
multinational companies assures a high level of competitiveness in the international
market by supporting foreign subsidiaries to better integrate in the company’s
worldwide operating activities and allows local operating companies a greater flexibility
to respond immediately to changes in the domestic market (Schultheis, 1995). Overall,
information systems, and their appropriate management, enable executives and
managers a contentious control and navigation of all subsidiaries. This results in the
gain of competitive advantage and enables the companies to serve their customers
and clients with more innovative products and services.
2.3. Data / File Management
2.3.1. Data Storage and Processing
The quality, accuracy and pace of responding within an organisation to various kinds of
queries, either from customers or colleagues, always reflects on the processes of
managing information flow through collecting, organising, storing and retrieving
captured information in files through an information system (Schultheis, 1995).
Therefore storing and retrieving data is often considered in the literature as the
essential study of information management. Using the word “data” in this context
implicates the definition of data. Nickerson (1998) (p. 10) defines data as “information
in form of a fact, number, word, image, picture or sound that is meaningful or useful to
someone”. In this context it should be highlighted that data for one person can, at the
same time, be important information for another one or might not even constitute
knowledge to either person.
With the introduction of computers in the 1980’s, and especially the high tech boom
followed by the rapid Internet development in the 1990’s, the need for storing and
accessing information captured in files has changed over the last decades (McNurlin,
1989). Thus, the development of more capable computer hardware and systems, which
resulted in the growth of required storage possibilities and the vast amount of created
files in most organisation’s day-to-day business, required also the development of
modern retrieval systems to enable easy and quick accessibility of stored files
(Chowdhury, 1999).
22
22
Belkin (1980) (135) defines the purpose of a retrieval information system as a key tool
to “serve as a bridge between the world of creators or generators of information and
the users of that information.” The aim of retrieval information systems is defined by
Chowdhury (1999) (p. 9) as “information collecting and organising system” across all
departments in an organisation in order to provide the stored data to users as soon as
asked for.
Taylor Chudnow (2003) argues that only 20% of the stored information in a company is
classified as “structured information” and 80% is “semi structured” or “unstructured
information”. Whereby structured information can be classified as data that can be
automated, obtained, modified and stored in the organisation’s network, though the
most common type of data is unstructured stored information such as word documents,
spreadsheets, presentations and images (Belkin, 1980). These unstructured type of
files do not allow any kind of automated processing. However, semi structured
information such as e-mails and linked database with file systems can only be
automatically accessed in limited ways. However, unstructured files take up a large
amount of storage capacity in most businesses and, related to their size and type of
nature, it can be difficult to manage these files. As Taylor Chudnow (2003) reports,
even the largest companies invest in database management but have not yet invested
the same amount in possibilities to manage their files and file systems. In order to meet
the needs of managing unstructured data, a file-based storage management, also
known as system resource management (SRM), has evolved over the past few years.
All today’s available SRM solutions monitor file structures and have automation and
control features such as automated reports of the oldest files, most and less frequent
used files or even a report of the fastest growing files on the network and also enhance
interactive communication streams. Laudon (2002) defines interactive communication
streams in an organisation as all kind of information that flows between people within a
work group or a department, and from one work group or department to another.
2.3.2. File transferring and sharing
While an operating system, hardware and networks create the platform for the
information system, businesses need additional application software to provide the
input, storage, processing and output functions (Taylor Chudnow, 2003). Several
software programmes are in use, from a simple structured Access Database up to
professional multiple databases (Alter, 1996). Sundaram (2006) states that the simplest
23
23
form of sharing data is to use a cheap and easily understandable information system
based on file processing. However many disadvantages apply to this form. One major
disadvantage is that data is duplicated in several files and it is difficult to ensure that
changed data will be automatically updated in all files. A second main disadvantage is
that a file can be accessed by only one user at a time (Sundaram, 2006).
Purba (2000) recommends a database as a solution for managing data instead of using
file processing. He defines a database as a collection of data and relationships
between data. Whilst in file processing all files are stored separately and isolated from
the other data, in database processing all data is stored together in a database and
utilised by a database management system which provides capabilities for creating,
accessing and updating the database. Adelman (2003) describes another opportunity
whereby big organisations can also implement an even more advanced information
system with an establishment of a data warehouse. Data warehouses also contain
historical data extracted over time from other databases and data from all other
multiple databases within the organisation (Purba, 2000). Figure 9 (below) illustrates
the major types of databases used by organisations.
FIGURE 9 Major types of databases Source: (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007) page 167.
In order to understand how databases and files can be distributed, stored and shared
by various users within a company, the principal ideas of Local Area Networks (LAN)
have to be explained. As shown in Figure 10 (below), local area networks connect all
PCs within an organisation, to link end users through a network server in different
24
24
offices, work groups, departments or even buildings. The company’s network server
allows users the storage of data files, access to software packages and network
peripherals such as printers. On the basis of the provided infrastructure by a local area
network, information systems are used as an application software to access stored
information captured in files or databases on the network server and are shared with
other users (Nickerson, 2001).
FIGURE 10 A typical Local Area Network (LAN) Source: (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007) page 205.
2.4. Information Systems Development
A complex question such as that arising through AACSB accreditation, whereby it is
necessary to conduct an analysis of current usage of information systems within the
AUT Business School has no easy solution. It is necessary therefore to adopt a
structured approach called “information systems development or application
development” (J. A. O'Brien, Marakas, George M., 2007) (p. 19). The following sections
will illustrate what kind of systems development concepts and methods exist and how
applications have to be developed to meet the requirements of the organisation, its
employees and stakeholders. These findings are then linked to the current situation at
the Business School and provide recommendations for an application of an asset
method.
2.4.1. Systems analysis and design
25
25
In the early days, skills and techniques of computing information systems were
considered as an art work which only a few IT experts could master. As a result the
maintenance and further development in businesses was very difficult and expensive
(Jessup, 1999). To address this issue, professionals started to design different
methods and techniques of developing information systems which could be constructed
and applied in different industries, organisations and institutions (Nunamaker, 1992).
This evolution resulted also in the benefits of an easier and in particular similar training
of programmers and systems analysts. This ensured organisations the independence
of developers but furthermore the development of systems based on commonly used
techniques became easier and cheaper to maintain (Alter, 1999).
As shown in Figure 11 (below), Jessup (1999) outlines four options which organisations
can choose for developing information systems. One option allows organisations to
develop their own information system. Option two highlights an easier, probably faster
and especially cheaper way of implementing a new information system in an
organisation through the purchase of a pre-packaged system. However, purchasing
developed software might not meet all required needs of the organisation and has
therefore be to assessed on an individual basis whether it is still worth choosing this
option. A third option is the outsourcing of the development process to another
organisation or consultant. Most enterprises choose this option when they have not got
the resources and expertise to develop their own customised information system. The
fourth and final option is known as the end-user development. This method allows
users and departments to be an active part of the requirement examination and
development process. Applying this technique also results, not only to the
organisation’s benefit, but also in the creation of systems which support users’
individual needs (Gordon, 1999). However, systems based on complex databases or
which span organisational boundaries are in general not suitable for this method.
The set purpose of this study with its evaluation of the development of a suitable
information system for the AUT Business School, emphasises option one and three of
the in Figure 11 (below) displayed options as not applicable. However, a desired goal
of this study is to examine whether option four or option two would be the best
alternative to develop a suitable information system for the Business School.
26
26
FIGURE 11 Options for obtaining information systems Source: (Jessup, 1999) page 4:8.
O’Brien and Marakas (2007) illustrate the systems development process of analysing
and defining problems and restrictions of the currently used information system by
using a five step model of the so called ‘systems approach’, shown in Figure 12
(below). The authors argue that by following these steps an appropriate solution can
then be developed in response to the initial assessed requirements.
Recognise and define problems
Develop and evaluate alternatives
Select a systems solution
Implement the system
Design the system
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Recognise and define problems
Develop and evaluate alternatives
Select a systems solution
Implement the system
Design the system
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
FIGURE 12 The five step systems approach
27
27
A similar approach of the systems development process illustrated by Jessup (1999) is
a four step model, shown in Figure 13 (below).
FIGURE 13 The four step development approach of information systems Source: (Gordon, 1999) page 30.
2.4.2. Key systems development concepts
The oldest form of developing information systems evolved in the 1960’s and is known
as the “systems development life cycle (SDLC)” (Gordon, 1999) (p. 153). This
methodology is known as a very well-considered, structured, but also very inflexible,
way of developing information systems, as each stage of the development life cycle
had to be carried out and be completed before moving on to the next stage of the
development life cycle (Hicks, 1990).
Today the SDLC approach is mainly in use for large scale developments especially in
the telecommunication sector where it is necessary to periodically change telephone
numbers and area codes (Alter, 1999).
Since the mid 1980’s the traditional systems development life cycle approach has been
mainly replaced through alternative development methods (G. Elliott, and Starkings, S,
1998). However, in order to be able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of
traditional development concepts as compared to the new evolved alternative
approaches, the four basic stages of the life cycle have to be examined first. As shown
in Figure 14 (below) the systems development life cycle consists of four sequences of
28
28
stages. In the first stage, “System Identification, Selection and Planning” takes place
(Gordon, 1999). In this phase of the development process it is most important to gather
as much data as possible about the users’ needs and their perceptions of a well
functioning information system.
The second stage of the life cycle is determined by the “Systems Analysis” which
involves systems investigations, with the aim to understand the systems problem and
evaluate whether the issue raised can be solved (Schultheis, 1995). This can be
achieved by interviews with employees, questionnaires, observations and data
acquisition through the evaluation and analysis of systems documentations (Alter,
1999). After data collection and analysis of the systems environment this stage also
performs a feasibility analysis. Elliot (2004) identifies the five main factors the feasibility
analysis contains as: “Technical feasibility” to determine technical possibilities of
developing a system. “Economic feasibility” to assess the financial constraints. “Legal
feasibility” to indicate existing legal requirements and restrictions. “Operational
feasibility” to determine whether the proposed system is suitable for operational
activities and procedures. And finally “schedule feasibility” to prove the practicality of
the proposed systems development process.
The third stage of the development life cycle is the “Systems Design” which can be
divided into a logical and a physical part (Gordon, 1999). Just as a constructor would
not start building a house without a plan and measurements, the physical design of the
information system requires, in the first instance, a theoretical design of the proposed
information system (Schultheis, 1995). The logical design also conceptualises how the
proposed system should solve the identified issues in stages one and two. The
physical design of the information system typically involves the following elements:
hardware, software, storage media, telecommunications technology, people and
organisation (Oz, 2006).
The fourth and last stage is the “Systems Implementation” and “Systems Maintenance”
(Jessup, 1999) (p. 4:20). In the traditional systems development life cycle this is also
known as the “Evaluation Stage” (G. Elliott, 2004) (p. 88). This stage is concerned with
uninstalling the old system, hence the installation of the new information system. This
might include the training of end users in how to use the new system and also might
include a pilot testing of the new system. This stage of the development life cycle is
primarily concerned with the implementation of hardware and software components in
the organisation’s IT-environment (Schultheis, 1995). This phase also includes the
29
29
evaluation of the system’s integration, performance and how it covers the addressed
issues (Jessup, 1999). Discovered variances and errors have then to be fixed either
through a readjustment or a modification in the maintenance stage. Typically the
readjustments and modifications start from the first stage again, which would also
complete the circle. As shown in Figure 14 (below) the big circle also consists of small
inner circles between the several stages which require the completion of one stage
before moving on the next stage. In the worst case scenario of completing a stage, the
developers might have to move a step back to the previous stage to do a review or
make adjustments. However, in practice it is hardly possible to develop an information
system by following this strict and sequential fulfilment of stages.
FIGURE 14 Systems Development life cycle Source: (Jessup, 1999) page 4:10.
Based on the principles of the systems development life cycle, several models and
techniques such as the “waterfall model”, “the spiral model” and “prototyping” evolved
over the years (Gordon, 1999) (p. 487, 489, 490). The waterfall model, shown in Figure
15 (below) illustrates clearly the principles of the step by step or stage development.
Where the SDLC allows the rotation in inner circles between the several steps to make
readjustments, the waterfall model does not allow these backward steps. Like water
flowing in a river or in a waterfall only one way, the approach for a systems
development is based on the same ‘one-way’ principle (G. Elliott, and Starkings, S,
1998). This linear approach makes this model relatively easy to manage but at the
same time very inflexible as it allows no errors or control loops to make readjustments
to a previous stage. This can lead to major failures of set user requirements and
organisational needs.
30
30
Gordon proposes a different approach of modelling and developing systems with the
“spiral model” (Jessup, 1999). As illustrated in Figure 16 (below) the development
follows the same stages of the SDLC and the waterfall model. The difference, however,
is that the spiral approach develops systems through several versions of which each
version follows through the same SDLC stages except maintenance which only applies
to the final version. The spiral approach is also driven by the “80/20 rule” (Gordon,
1999). This rule emphasises that by the realisation of 20 percent of the users’
demanded functions, 80 percent of the users’ needs can be met already in version one
of the systems development process. The following versions two and three are most
likely only in place to terminate errors, add features but also add “bells and whistles” to
the system. The difference however is that the spiral approach enables the users to
see first results of the systems development so that if applicable the end result can be
revised through interactive collaboration with the developers. Although the spiral
approach means a consistent rework on existing versions, the model allows users to
see the progress and judge how long it will take till completion and removal of the
existing system (Jessup, 1999).
FIGURE 15 Waterfall method of systems development Source: (Gordon, 1999) page 487.
FIGURE 16 The spiral systems development model Source: (Gordon, 1999) page 489.
2.4.2.1. Strengths and Weaknesses of traditional Development concepts
In order to understand ISD in relation to current knowledge and perception of
information technology and the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional concepts
and methods, we first have to describe the environment in which these models have
been developed and used. At the time of the systems development life cycle in the
1960’s the need for information systems developments was only raised in a few large
31
31
companies (Deloitte & Touche, 1998). Furthermore the use was mainly in the
company’s electronic data processing (EDP) department (Alter, 1999). Compared to
nowadays, the use and focus group was completely different from what it is today.
Information Technology and its applications are nowadays essential to every
organisation, its departments and employees. Today there is an essential requirement
on every user as an employee to know and use information systems in an effective and
efficient way. But also the enterprises have nowadays become more dynamic in
dealing with business changes and challenges, so that requirements for information
systems have evolved to a completely different level. Nevertheless, the traditional
SDLC has some strengths upon which the new approaches have been developed.
The SDLC is a developed and tested approach of developing systems. The SDLC also
relies on the documentation of the development processes which are a very important
element for systems maintenance and user trainings (Oz, 2006). The concept of a
stage development enables the breakdown of complex system development problems
and enables the use of formalized analysis and design tools.
However, whilst the SDLC’s usage was appropriate in the business and IT environment
in the 1960’s and 1970’s, it cannot be adopted in modern businesses with their
requirements on information transformation and processing. The main disadvantage
and weakness of the SDLC is its conception in which the end-users are not included in
the development process (Deloitte & Touche, 1998). This results quite often in a
confrontation between end-users and user unfriendly information systems often leading
to end-users refusing to use the new system. Furthermore, the need to complete stage
by stage makes the model very inflexible for changes and at the same time increases
the development costs (Gordon, 1999). A parallel development of sequences could
result in significant time and cost savings. The development of a system through the
SDLC approach is also a slow and labour intensive process which might be
inappropriate for most organisations which need a quick response to marked changes
and challenges (Schultheis, 1995). The proposed step by step development approach
ignores the possibility of testing the developed system as a pilot to reduce the risk of
failure through not meeting the users’ requirements.
32
32
2.4.2.2. Alternative Development methods
The failings of the traditional models and the significant changes of the business
environment, led to the evolution in the 1990’s of new and alternative approaches of
developing information systems (Schultheis, 1995). Some of the alternative
approaches are ajar on the concepts of the SDLC and some focused on a completely
different approach. The new models were also developed with the focus on reducing
the development time and costs and ensuring the satisfaction of user needs (Deloitte &
Touche, 1998). Another outstanding difference from the traditional SDLC approach is
the acknowledgement that most information systems in organisations involve human
activity as an unpredictable factor. Furthermore, this acknowledgement highlights the
basic concept, that all alternative approaches have to be seen in totality and not in
isolation.
Today there are six most commonly know alternative development approaches in the
literature with the emphasis on involving the end-users in the development process (G.
Elliott, 2004):
Rapid applications Development (RAD)
Joint Applications Development (JAD)
Prototyping Systems Development (PSD)
Object Oriented Systems Development (OOSD)
Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM)
Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR)
Rapid applications Development (RAD)
The term “rapid applications development (RAD)” is an umbrella conception to bundle
various new methods, tools and techniques to enable end-user participation and to
accelerate the development process of information systems (G. Elliott, and Starkings,
S, 1998). The needs for rapid systems development concepts and models have risen
significantly in the past few years. A reason here fore is the high competitiveness
organisations have to face on the global market. The basic concept of rapid
development is of the creation of a synergy through the development of the various
tools and the combined actions of one or two activities which lead to a greater outcome
than treating the activities in isolation (Jessup, 1999).
33
33
The concept of rapid applications development is based on the four phases shown in
Table 1 (below). These phases incorporate the assumption and premise of using only
fast, effective and efficient tools and methods combined with appropriate and suitable
software applications. Rapid applications development also emphasises a
concentrated and permanent end-user involvement through the development process
via interviews, meetings and workshops to ensure the fulfilment of the users’ needs
(Schultheis, 1995). The proposed tools and techniques which fall under the RAD
umbrella are quite often also related to the “dynamic systems development method
(DSDM)” (G. Elliott, and Starkings, S, 1998). Hence, there is a methodical and logical
way of using the RAD approach. However, the success of RAD applications in an
organisation is often measured by how well the developed system fits into the
organisation’s business specifications and how well the system delivers benefits to that
specification.
TABLE 1 The four Phases of rapid applications development Source: (G. Elliott, 2004) page 131.
Joint Applications Development (JAD)
Since the late 1970’s, joint application development (JAD) has been proven to be one
of the most successful techniques of identifying user requirements and developing,
through active user participation in the development process, end user oriented and
committed information systems (McNurlin, 1989). Therefore most enterprises use the
34
34
JAD approach instead of traditional data collection methods and requirement analysis.
In order to bring the right people in the most suitable working environment, the JAD
concept is based on structured workshops and group meetings between several end
users, managers, technical specialists and other systems stakeholders who work
collaboratively together to identify user requirements, analyse the existing system and
identify and propose solutions for improvement (G. Elliott, and Starkings, S, 1998). The
emphasis of this method is clearly on “joint ownership” which highlights the importance
of collaborative and interactive work amongst all stakeholders in the organisation.
Elliott (2004) (p. 135) highlights the essential purpose of the JAD approach “to design a
conceptual model of the proposed information system” that exactly matches the
designed and desired models of the managers as business experts and the technical
specialists. Only a continuous iteration of meetings and workshops enhances the
consolidation of the two designed models to one conceptual model. Figure 17 (below)
shows a model of a typical JAD workshop or group meeting. The JAD participative
framework consists basically of brainstorming meetings in structured meeting rooms
with a neutral facilitator who guides the participants through the discussion (Oz, 2006).
FIGURE 17 JAD environnent Source: (G. Elliott, 2004) page 136.
35
35
There are a number of advantages in using the JAD approach. Firstly, users, managers
and IT specialists are encouraged to focus on systems requirements and issues.
Secondly, the participation of all stakeholders in one room also results in the benefit of
quick decision making and ensures, through their enfranchise in the decision making
process, a high commitment towards the achievement of set goals and reduces the risk
of resistance to the proposed system. And finally, the integration of a neutral facilitator
helps to conciliate and overcome internal organisational politics to ensure efficient
group work but also the development of the most suitable and appropriate information
system.
Prototyping Systems Development (PSD)
A third approach of systems development is known as the “prototyping model”
(Gordon, 1999). This approach has the fulfilment of the users’ needs as a priority. In
order to achieve this goal, the prototyping model focuses through the design and
development stages on the user interface and modifies the versions until the user is
satisfied (Schultheis, 1995). During these phases of the development process,
developers often change the design of the system as the need for new features arises.
As most end users have only limited knowledge and training of traditional tools to
analyse and design systems, the prototyping approach offers users the possibility of
transcribing the systems environment and requirements through symbols and pictures
(Hicks, 1990). This technique is part of the soft system development methodology and
known as “story board” or “rich picture” (G. Elliott, 2004) (p. 145). Rich pictures can be
developed individually, in groups or in workshops to express and communicate non-
technical users’ own views of the systems environment and propose ideas for
improvement to the technical specialists. Figure 18 (below) illustrates an example of a
rich picture visualising a typical marketing systems environment.
The prototyping model offers several advantages over the waterfall method. The most
important is certainly the satisfaction of the users’ needs once through the extreme
focus on the users but also caused through the longer time developers have to spend
between the analysis and implementation. The prototyping model also highlights,
through user involvement, the benefits of the new system before the development
costs become excessive. The prototyping approach enhances the chances to
overcome the problem of inadequate communication between technical and non-
technical users but also involves managers as business specialists throughout the
whole development process which was not possible with traditional approaches (G.
36
36
Elliott, 2004). However, the concept of this model has also some disadvantages.
Gordon (1999) points out the fact that a high user involvement in the development
processes will significantly increase the risk of the rise of users’ expectations to level
developers cannot achieve with their resources and budget. Users’ requests for
changes might also only include the adding of “bells and whistles” which are not
necessary to satisfy the core functions of the system (Schultheis, 1995). The tendency
to get sidetracked in the development can significantly increase the costs of the
system’s development.
FIGURE 18 An example of a rich picture to describe the environment of marketing functions Source: (G. Elliott, and Starkings, S, 1998) page 102.
37
37
Object oriented Systems Development (OOSD)
Elliott and Starkings (1998) (p. 104) describe the object oriented systems development
(OOSD) as a method which “combines data and the associated instructions for that
data into one object or entity” to enable a transposable use and integration into other
software applications. This interconnectivity approach allows developers to obtain
object codes and data from on object library and build them like blocks into any
systems application (G. Elliott, 2004). Jessup (1999) argues the use of an object
oriented systems design results in the benefits of saving costs and time through a
multiple usability of the processed data in the object library. However, it requires high
skills to analyse, compromise and code business functions correctly into objects, which
makes this method less likely to be used.
Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM)
In the form of framing the rapid application development (RAD) approach, the concept
of the dynamic systems development method evolved in the late 1990’s into the
development of modern information systems in fast changing business environments.
The establishment of an International DSDM Consortium in 2000-2001 resulted in a
world wide use of the DSDM (DSDM Consortium, 2007). After several years of being
an integrated and set framework for systems developments in the UK and Europe, the
USA started to adopt the DSDM approach in the twenty first century. The main purpose
of this method is to enable a quick business solution in the global network and “dot
com” age (DSDM Consortium, 2007).
To ensure the achievement of rapid and right systems development by reducing
uncertainty in quick turn around environments, the DSDM approach uses, like the JAD
approach, facilitated workshops but furthermore the reuse of objects and time-boxing
through the whole development process (J. A. O'Brien, 2004). As time and resources
often vary during the development process, the DSDM approach, time and resources
are fixed as far as possible through the whole process which ensures the aim of
aligning the IS development with the users’ changing needs and requirements (Nair,
1999). However, the primary aim of the DSDM is to shorten the implementation time of
developed information systems.
There are a number of benefits of using DSDM. An outstanding characteristic is the
high level of involvement of end-users throughout the whole development phase.
38
38
Through the continuous focus on the users’ real business requirements, this intensive
user involvement reduces the risk of misunderstandings between the developers and
users to avoid building an incorrect system (Schultheis, 1995). The concept of DSDM is
based on a simple three factor systems development: functionality focus, working in a
set time frame and resource utilisation (G. Elliott, and Starkings, S, 1998). Whereas in
the traditional development approaches developers had to construct systems for a
fixed functionality but with variable time constraints and resources, the DSDM
approach operates in the development of systems in a fixed resource and time frame
but with a high flexibility for changing user requirements and systems functionality.
Figure 19 (below) illustrates these different approaches.
FIGURE 19 Difference between DSDM and SDLC approach Source: (G. Elliott, 2004) page 153.
Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR)
The business process re-engineering approach is a method that addresses the
organisation’s strategic orientation and direction in the development of information
systems (G. Elliott, 2004). Therefore the BPR does not develop systems based on
functionality of existing systems but looks at the purpose and objectives of the
organisation’s information communication technology to justify whether existing
information systems are appropriate and satisfying to support the company’s overall
strategic direction (Jessup, 1999). The BPR approach also is more likely attempt to
change underperforming business processes rather than developing an entire new
system as a way of ensuring the achievement of the organisation’s set goals. Although
there is a major benefit in adopting the BPR approach, this method also emphasises
some challenges, as the method requires a highly skilled management to examine the
processes for fundamental organisational changes (G. Elliott, and Starkings, S, 1998).
39
39
Furthermore, this approach of improvement and performance measurement involves a
difficult establishment of performance criteria to judge and evaluate BPR activities.
2.4.3. Success and Failure of IS-D
Jones argues that 65 percent of the very large information systems developments with
a budget of more than US$ one million are cancelled before completion (Jones, 1993).
Nykamp and Magalitta (1991) in turn argue that smaller systems development projects
with less complexity have only a cancellation rate of 10 percent or less. However,
Lybrand (1996) and several other authors highlight a high number of failures of
successful information system developments (ISD) (Lybrand, 1996). Beynon-Davis
provides evidence showing the profound consequences of organisations’ failure to
perform thorough first, or continuous, information system development (ISD)
evaluations (Beynon-Davis, 2004). Brynjolfson (1993) reports that the failure to
evaluate ISD across its lifecycle has resulted in limited organisational learning of IT
and information systems (Brynjolfson, 1993). To avoid such failures, Beynon-Davies et.
al. (2004) proposed an enhanced model linking findings from incorporating continuous
feedback loops as aids to organisational learning. Nonaka et. al. (2000) proposed a
model consisting of three elements to understand how organisations can create,
maintain and manage knowledge dynamically. The first element is the SECI
(socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation) process which focuses
on knowledge creation through the continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit
knowledge. The second element, named as ‘ba’, displays the shared context for
knowledge creation. The third and final element is defined by the knowledge assets
which consist of the inputs, outputs and moderators of the knowledge-creating process.
The main findings of Nonaka, Toyama and Konno in this study were that these three
elements form a spiral in the knowledge creation process so that existing knowledge
assets can be used by an organisation to create new knowledge through the SECI
process. Once new knowledge is created it becomes, in turn, the basis for a new spiral
of knowledge creation. Based on these findings, Nonaka et. al. (2000) argue that
knowledge can also be created by interactions between a company and its customers
or even between a group of companies.
40
40
2.4.4. Information Systems Development at the Business School
Before choosing a systems development method, AUT’s Business School has to
consider three stages:
1. Identify and understand knowledge assets and existing organisational
information.
2. Establish the ability to manage these assets through appropriate information
systems which enable the transforming, sharing and storing of data and
information.
3. Scope the purpose of the information systems development to ensure
maximised development effectiveness within time and cost constraints.
In regards to a systems development method, it is important for sustainable success
that the chosen development approach is realistically achievable within existing
Business School frameworks but is also aligned with accepted standards and best
practice to be capable of a resource sensitive and progressive implementation.
However, in particular the chosen systems development approach has to align with the
School’s strategic goals to be responsive to strategic directions and priorities. If a
systems development method can enhance these requirements and develop a system
under these permissions, it is most likely that the developed system will strengthen the
Business School’s ability and capability of better file, information and knowledge
sharing for better management of the organisation’s day-to-day business, teaching,
learning and research.
The author believes that, out of the above examined alternative development
approaches, a mixture of the joint application approach and prototyping approach will
be the most appropriate method to develop an information system at the Business
School. The approach of joint meetings and workshops with all stakeholders will be the
best collaborative and interactive approach of communicating different perceptions and
requirements amongst users of different organisational levels within the Business
School. Using the prototyping approach to map requirements and express
environmental issues to technical and non-technical users in the form of rich pictures
seems to be a valuable technique which emphasises the adoption of the joint
application approach (JAD) in the Business School.
41
41
Conducting this study in the given severe time constraint of 3 months, emphasises
limitations in terms of using the joint application and prototyping approaches for the
evaluation of the four currently used information systems in order to identify user
requirements. The given time frame allows only the application of the first two rapid
development approach phases shown in Table 1 (above). This study is conducting in
these first two phases “requirements planning” and “user design”, one-on-one
interviews in which the interviewees have to draw a rich picture, a tool from the
prototyping approach, to express the users’ and system’s environment. These elicit
data will identify the users’ systems requirements. An expected outcome of this study is
ongoing collaboration in the systems development process between technical and non-
technical users in the idea of the joint application approach.
3. Introduction to AUT’s Environment
3.1. Auckland University of Technology The Auckland University of Technology (AUT) is New Zealand’s newest and fastest
growing university. It was founded in 1895 and was for over 100 years New Zealand’s
leading Institute of Technology. The school was given University status by the
Government in 2000 (Auckland University of Technology, 2007a), in recognition of its
national and international stature in creativity, research, innovation and excellence in
teaching. As such, the University has the express statutory power to award degrees
and other qualifications that are recognised nationally and internationally.
Comprising of five schools: Applied Humanities, Business, Design and Creative
Technologies, Health & Environmental Sciences and Te Ara Poutama (Maori
Development) and a student population of 15,741 Equivalent Full Time Students
(EFTS), total number of 22,822 students and 1,769 Full-time Equivalent (FTE)
academic and administration staff, Auckland University of Technology offers one of the
largest and most diverse university environments in New Zealand (Auckland University
of Technology, 2006). Informed by businesses and industry professionals in the
university’s programmes, in 2006 AUT awarded 9 Doctorates, 279 Masters, 227
Honours, Postgraduate Degrees, 2,309 Bachelor Degrees and 3693 Pre Degree
qualifications (Auckland University of Technology, 2006).
42
42
3.2. Relationship between the Business School and Information Systems
The Business School was established in 1988 and has grown to become one of New
Zealand’s major business schools. The School has both a national and international
focus, with academic school members drawn from some of the best universities around
the world, connection with leading global business and educational institutions, and a
significant international student body drawn from over 60 countries. In order to offer the
4,280 Equivalent Full-time Students (EFTS) a range of qualifications from tailored
short-course certificates and diplomas through to PhD’s, the Business School currently
employs 168 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) academic staff and 51 Full-Time Equivalent
(FTE) administrative and managerial staff (Auckland University of Technology, 2006).
In order to examine the importance of information systems at the Business School the
relationship between the School’s mission statement, intellectual contributions of
academic staff and supporting contributions through administrative and managerial
staff must be illustrated first.
The Business School defines its mission “To develop business graduates who are
highly capable, valued and sought after by employers, and to undertake research
which supports our programs and contributes to professional practice in business. Our
graduates and research will contribute to business, industry and the community and to
the economic and social development of Auckland and New Zealand within a global
context” ('Internal Planning Document' AUT 2007). This recently reviewed mission
statement has progressively been reflected in all of its programs and activities. In
regards to this mission, the school maintains two distinctive and long-standing
commitments. The first commitment is to provide excellence through generating highly
employable graduates. The second commitment is to provide its students with an
education that is practice-relevant and research-led to develop their ability to think
independently and work collaboratively.
The university operates a highly devolved style of management which affords the
Deans considerable discretion in both administrative and academic affairs of the
schools. The Business School’s Dean exercises the school’s discretion within the
context of broad university-wide corporate policies and prescribed academic processes
designed to ensure program quality. The Dean of the Business School is accountable
for the performance of the school through clearly defined performance objectives
underpinned by performance-based individual employment agreements.
43
43
This environment highlights the importance of accurate, easily accessible and timely
information in order to support work groups, managers and executives of the Business
School in their reporting and decision making. The school’s mission statement explicitly
guides the intellectual contributions of academic staff members and highlights the
necessity of an efficient information system in assisting academic staff to be research
active and in return ensure students are exposed to fresh ideas, current developments
and innovations. Therefore the Business School needs to provide an extensive range
of information based services through easily accessible information repositories, ‘state
of the art’ computer facilities with effective and efficient information systems to support
the learning and wider social needs of its students.
3.3. Knowledge Management at AUT
AUT defines itself as “a knowledge organisation, be it for research or teaching or
learning or for administrative and management functions” (Auckland University of
Technology, 2007). As AUT is not a process driven institution and can be mainly seen
as a network or relationship organisation where knowledge is managed informally
between individuals, knowledge functions more as pervasive ‘glue’ between the
research, teaching and management functions at AUT.
Although the application of knowledge management in many business organisations
has become very common nowadays, it is still not well integrated or developed at
universities. Inspired by Muthukumar’s (2005) (p. 379) statement “for a research
intensive organization, knowledge is its most profound asset and so it is imperative that
efficient knowledge management be one of its priority strategic concerns” and the
various universities world wide which have successfully established and integrated a
version of knowledge management for their university, such as the University of
Edinburgh or King’s College London’s University, the Auckland University of
Technology (AUT) established in 2004 a knowledge management group. This
innovative progress will also help AUT to demonstrate, nationally and internationally,
leadership in the development of a knowledge management in the tertiary education
sector. The knowledge management group defines its purpose as:
“To create and maintain a framework in which all members of the University are
encouraged to share and use knowledge for the benefit of teaching, learning,
research and business goals and which allows them to seamlessly and easily
44
44
connect to the information they need, whenever they need it and wherever it is
located” (Auckland University of Technology, 2007).
The responsibilities and initiatives of AUT’s knowledge management group in
managing knowledge at the university’s functions have been involved so far in AUT’s
Library, IT department, academic research, e-learning and in marketing activities.
To ensure effective guidance in the management of the university’s resources and
capabilities by the knowledge management group, a knowledge management
framework within AUT’s strategic plan had to be developed. Within this framework the
knowledge management group identified the following challenges which have to be
addressed to manage knowledge effectively across the university:
a. Avoid data duplications
b. Eliminate silos of information
c. Avoid the distribution of incomplete or averaged information
d. Avoid loss of opportunity
e. Improve information literacy skills of researchers, managers and
administrators
f. Increase accessibility of recorded internal knowledge
g. Increase the transmission of external knowledge
h. Assess when integration of knowledge sources is appropriate
3.4. File Record Management at AUT The Auckland University is currently engaged to work with the assistance of an external
consultant towards the above mentioned issue of avoiding data duplications. Through
this project the knowledge management group strives to frame and implement records
management (RM) across the university.
Based on the assessment of current applied records management practices across the
university in regards to existing documents and involved processes of file creation,
storage and distribution, a records classification based on functions and sub-functions
at AUT had been developed and illustrated in a gap analysis across AUT (Auckland
University of Technology, 2007). Through several pilot projects based in communities
of practice, the entire range of activity levels had been examined to identify the
45
45
classifications and record standards which assist in the examination of a cultural
strategy aligned with, and supporting, the knowledge management framework. The
established record management at AUT strives to achieve (Auckland University of
Technology, 2007):
reduced overheads
appropriate archiving
retention & disposal of stored files
security of vital records
competitive advantage through access of accurate and appropriate information
standardization in naming files
Using the terms “records” in this context necessitates its definition for a better
understanding. The ISO standards define records as "information created, received,
and maintained as evidence and information by an organization or person, in
pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business" (Healy, 2001) (p. 135).
Gill (1988) identifies two types of records: public records and vital records. In a
business context, a record can be identified as an output that records each and every
business administrative transaction in a form of a file. Clark (2005) identifies public
records as a format of neutral information which is designed and created for public or
external diffusion. Public records are therefore required to be kept only to a minimum
standard for a specified time (Clark, 2005). In turn Vital Records are crucial records to
the conduct of the business (Gill, 1988). Thus, Vital Records protect AUT’s assets and
interests of its clients and employees so that these records determine essential records
in terms of a continuous operation and existence of AUT University.
The knowledge management group identified the following basic components of the
records management framework:
A. Classification Scheme – Information Profile
B. Retention and Disposal Schedule
C. Policy and Procedures
D. Training
46
46
A. Classification Scheme
Classification is defined in the ISO 15489: 2001 standard as the "field of management
responsible for the efficient and systematic control of the creation, receipt,
maintenance, use and disposition of records, including the processes for capturing and
maintaining evidence of and information about business activities and transactions in
the form of records" (Healy, 2001) (p. 137). Human nature naturally tends towards the
classification of similar records. To ensure AUT a long term flexible and robust
structure the record management framework works in its classification of files and
records on the basis of their functionality and involved activities towards the ISO
15489: 2001 best practice standard.
B. Retention and Disposal Schedule
Based on the classification scheme, a retention and disposal (R&D) schedule
represents the legislative, compliance and business requirements for the retention of
records in any business. The easiest way to create a retention and disposal (R&D)
schedule is to map processes and activities back to the classification structure which
should be based on business activities.
C. Policy and Procedures
The record management framework is led by policies and procedures to assist with
initial and ongoing training and the creation of compliance to best practice standards
and the Public Records Act. A further aim of the set policies and procedures is to
evolve them into an ongoing application as a standard for all employees with the
additional benefit of modelling the basis of key performance indicators (KPIs) in respect
of records.
D. Training
Once the system is introduced and approved, training opportunities will be provided by
the knowledge management group through so-called “records champions” in each
Faculty. A record champion can either be an academic, managerial or administrative
staff member. The specified task of the record champions is to ensure that once the
standards have been approved, released and distributed in training sessions, the
employees in their departments follow the standards of recording information in files
47
47
within the retention and disposal cycle. As of today twelve records champions have
been defined for the Business School.
The record management’s framework can basically be summarised as
“PROGRAMME”
P – people, processes, policies, procedures
R – records classification
O – organisations
G – good practice
R – retention
A – archive
M – management of information
M – minimising risk
E – effective control
3.5. Link between AUT’s Knowledge Management and Information Systems
The benefits of the implementation of a records management programme can best be
illustrated in a calculation:
Based on the assumptions of:
every employee spends 15 minutes per day, every year, looking for information
average salary of $23.00 per hour
220 employees at the Business School
2000 employees at AUT
sting the Business School NZ $ 1,380 per year per
employee. This totals to NZ $ 483,000 per year for all employees. In the whole context
a) 15 minutes * 5 days * 4 weeks * 12 months / 60 minutes * 23 $/h = NZ $ 1,380
b) NZ $ 1,380 * 219 employees = NZ $ 302,220
c) NZ $ 1,380 * 1769 employees = NZ $ 2,441,220
Based on these assumptions it is co
48
48
up records management combined with an effective information system will
ignificantly increase the accessibility of information captured in files, thus enabling the
3.6. AACSB requirements for Information Systems
“A
of AUT the costs amount to 2.7 million NZ dollars per year. These costs are only
based on the time the staff members lose through searching for information. The loss
of time through the creation of duplications or opportunity lost through the use of
outdated information are not taken into consideration. The loss would be significantly
higher.
A well set
s
management to make better decisions. A well set up information system will also
enable users to file in a smart, quick and easy way. Clear retention and disposal “rules”
will clarify how long a file/document has to be kept in the organization, where it has to
be stored and when it has to be destroyed which will increase again the availability of
information within Business School. The set uniformity through records management
and its identified retrieval and disposal standards for naming and storing files, enables
information systems to find and access the files across the university. Hence, records
management and a well functioning information system work complementary to each
other in an organisation. If files are not saved and stored in a standard way they can
not be found and retrieved even by the best information system. In turn, without a
comprehensive information system, data, files and information can not be shared and
distributed even though the files are, without exception, named and stored in a
standard way.
ACSB International - The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business is a
ot-for-profit corporation of educational institutions, corporations and other
rnational is
day known with its first set standards in 1919, as the premier accrediting agency for
n
organizations devoted to the promotion and improvement of higher education in
business administration and management” (AACSB International, 2007a).
Founded by various universities of the United States in 1916, AACSB Inte
to
bachelor, master and doctoral degrees in accounting and business administration
(AACSB International, 2007a). As of July, 2007, AACSB accredited 551 business
institutions world wide (AACSB International, 2007a). With this world wide spread of
networks and responsibilities in top class universities, AACSB became over the years
for many universities a source of information, training and networking for management
49
49
colleges and universities as a “process
f voluntary, non-governmental review of educational institutions and programs”
nts for an appropriate information system
hich is adequate as a ‘file and knowledge sharing’ system, the AACSB accreditation
rds to information systems, the Business School had to identify in the
ccreditation Plan the issues of ensuring effective and accurate information sharing in
educators. In addition to its accreditation function, AACSB International engages in
research and survey projects and also interacts with the corporate community to link
the ‘academic world’ with the ‘business world’.
AACSB defines its core business of accrediting
o
(AACSB International, 2007a). As an approved agency, AACSB is entitled to award
accreditation to tertiary educational institutions for outstanding performance of
academic units or professional programs for undergraduate and graduate accounting
and business administration programs. Universities which have been accredited by
AACSB International are, with their outstanding achievements teaching, research and
organisational performance, among the top business schools worldwide. These
institutions passed the initial assessment of quality and performance and are
committed to a rigorous and comprehensive yearly peer review of quality assurance
and continuous improvement. The initial ‘16 step’ assessment of quality and
performance each Business School has to undergo during the seven year application
process, is illustrated in Figure 20 (below).
In order to understand AACSB’s requireme
w
process needs be illustrated first. AUT’s Business School started the AACSB
accreditation process in December 2006 with its submission of the eligibility
application. Although the review of the school’s eligibility application by the Pre-
Accreditation Committee (PAC) raised a number of concerns, the school was accepted
as being eligible for accreditation and is currently working as highlighted in Figure 20
(below) on step six. The Business School’s mentor, which has been allocated to AUT’s
Business School by AACSB, subsequently visited the school in July 2007 for the dual
purpose of assisting the School to respond to the concerns raised by PAC and to
review how the School satisfies each standard in preparing the analysis that underpins
the Accreditation Plan. With this assistance the Business School is currently framing
the Accreditation Plan and Strategic Plan to meet the submission deadline of January
2008.
In rega
A
the organisation and make suggestions as to what actions have to be taken to
countervail these issues. As shown in steps ten and eleven, the Business school has to
50
50
ail in
ppendix 1.
ool has to respond to each requirement of
ACSB’s 21 accreditation standards listed in Table 2 (below). The response has to
in AACSB’s “Eligibility Procedures and
ccreditation Standards for Business Accreditation” (AACSB International, 2007b)
then, after the approval of the Accreditation Plan, show in annual reports the
progression of the forward brought ideas. At latest in step eleven the School has then
to implement a modified or new file and knowledge sharing information system. A
review of this implementation then takes place in step thirteen, with the Business
School’s submission of a Self-Evaluation Report to AACSB’s Peer Review team.
The accreditation process shown in Figure 20 (below) is explained in more det
A
FIGURE 20 The AACSB accreditation timeline
In the Accreditation Plan, the Business Sch
A
give information about the current situation but also indicate methods and goals for a
continuous improvement in each section.
The examination of all 21 standards
A
highlights the request for an appropriate, effective and accurate information system
across several standards. The School’s assurance of quality in research, teaching,
learning and management, requires continued adequate information systems to share
information, files and knowledge. However, out of these 21 standards there are five
Start 1 2 3 4 5 67
89
1211
1413
16
15
10
AASCB membership
PreAccreditation Committee Accreditation Coordinating Committee reviews the Eli lication (PAC) assigns a mentor gibility App
Approval of accreditation plan by the PreAccreditation Committee (PAC)
Submit Eligibility
AMentor visits at the Business School
submit an Accreditation Plan and a Strate
After approval the accreditation plan is forwarded to the initial accreditation pplication gic Plan plan
The Initial Accreditation Committee reviews the
strategic plan and aMonitoring of the progress through the final two years of
the accomplishment of the accreditation
pproves it
plan Business School submits annual reports on progress made and any delays in
achievinImplementation of
accreditation plan – assistance by the mentor for 3
g its accreditation plan
prepare a Self-Evaluation Re
years port
AACSB’s Peer Review team reviews the Self-Evaluation Report
the Peer Review Team visits the Business School and express an accreditation decision
recommendation to the Initial Accreditation Committee
Final decision for accreditation
a roval
Finish
pp
After approx. 7 years
51
51
uous Improvement
bjectives” (Table 2, below). In response to this standard the School has to specify
outstanding standards which require an adequate and effective information system.
Based on AACSB’s manuscript of “Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards
for Business Accreditation” (AACSB International, 2007b), these five outstanding
standards are explained in more detail in the following paragraph.
The first outstanding standard is recorded in standard four “Contin
O
actions to be taken to achieve set goals and ensure a continuous improvement in the
Business School and the degree programs. Standard eight: “Staff Sufficiency-Student
Support” outlines the requirements of staff sufficiency and student support to provide
ongoing quality improvement for student support activities and to ensure operational
stability. The regulation of stability and ongoing quality improvement through the
maintenance of the academic staff sufficiency and their qualifications in the offered
courses and programs at the Business School is covered in standard nine “Faculty
Sufficiency”. On reflection of the School’s mission and programs, standard nine
requires an information system to enable research active staff members, as well
teaching staff members, the best possible preparation environment to offer teaching
and learning to students across all programs. Standard eleven “Faculty Management
and Support”, determines the development of information systems; probably the most
important standard and requirements. The standard clearly highlights the importance
and essential need for an appropriate information system to have “well-documented
and communicated processes in place to manage and support faculty members over
the progression of their careers consistent with the school’s mission” (AACSB
International, 2007b) (p 17). This support might include to management, control and
monitoring of the School’s tangible and intangible resources, undertaking periodic
reviews but mostly to provide other staff members and especially academic and
teaching staff members with the support they need to meet the expectations the School
holds for them in all their activities which relate to the mission statement. Standard
fifteen, “Management of Curricula”, expresses the need for information systems in
terms of monitoring progress and evaluating success of existing curricula or the
development of a new curriculum through a decision of the strategic management.
Information systems will support data and information from curriculum assessment and
evaluation to enable and also to support curriculum revision.
52
52
Standard 1: Mission StatementStandard 2: Mission AppropriatenessStandard 3: Student MissionStandard 4: Continuous Improvement ObjectivesStandard 5: Financial StrategiesStandard 6: Student AdmissionStandard 7: RetentionStandard 8: Staff Sufficiency-Student SupportStandard 9: Faculty SufficiencyStandard 10: Faculty QualificationsStandard 11: Faculty Management and SupportStandard 12: Aggregate Faculty and Staff Educational Responsibility Standard 13: Individual Faculty Educational Responsibility Standard 14: Student Educational Responsibility
ASSURANCE OF LEARNING STANDARDS
Standard 15: Management of Curricula Standard 16: Undergraduate Learning Goals Standard 17: Undergraduate Educational Level Standard 18: Master’s Level General Management Learning Goals Standard 19: Specialised Master’s Degree Learning Goals Standard 20: Masters Educational Level Standard 21: Doctoral Learning Goals
Standard 1: Mission StatementStandard 2: Mission AppropriatenessStandard 3: Student MissionStandard 4: Continuous Improvement ObjectivesStandard 5: Financial StrategiesStandard 6: Student AdmissionStandard 7: RetentionStandard 8: Staff Sufficiency-Student SupportStandard 9: Faculty SufficiencyStandard 10: Faculty QualificationsStandard 11: Faculty Management and SupportStandard 12: Aggregate Faculty and Staff Educational Responsibility Standard 13: Individual Faculty Educational Responsibility Standard 14: Student Educational Responsibility
ASSURANCE OF LEARNING STANDARDS
Standard 15: Management of Curricula Standard 16: Undergraduate Learning Goals Standard 17: Undergraduate Educational Level Standard 18: Master’s Level General Management Learning Goals Standard 19: Specialised Master’s Degree Learning Goals Standard 20: Masters Educational Level Standard 21: Doctoral Learning Goals
TABLE 2 AACSB’s 21 Accreditation Standards Source: (AACSB International, 2007a)
Classifying the Business School as a service offering knowledge and information-
based institution, the activities and intellectual assets within the Business School can
be grouped in management and administrative activities, research activities and
teaching and learning activities. Based on this environment, the above examined
standards and addressed requirements can be assigned into the School’s three main
activity groups. These classifications with their correspondent AACSB standards are
illustrated in Figure 21 (below).
Standards four, eight and eleven highlight, for management activities, the need for an
information system to enable ready access to data, information and knowledge to
enable well founded decision making, support and facilitate business improvements
and changes to ensure the achievement of set goals. The appropriate information
environment should also help to manage high responsible information such as policies
and legal compliance requirements. Furthermore, information systems should enhance
interaction and collaboration amongst several departments across all functions to be
able to provide consistent high-quality experiences and best practice but should also
have the possibility of providing only authorised access to stored information.
53
53
Standards four, nine and ten in turn set requirements for research activities. They
highlight the necessity for ready access to information but mention also the exigency to
manage intellectual property and research outputs stored at the Business School.
These standards clearly highlight that the literacy of sharing and distributing data,
information and knowledge determine a core capability for the School's academic staff
members to integrate and participate actively in today's knowledge society.
In order to ensure high quality teaching and learning, standards seven, fourteen and
fifteen request an appropriate and effective functioning information system to support
access to information across diverse groups of interest such as colleagues, but also
students, and diverse access points such as classrooms, seminar rooms
and laboratories. To ensure continuous teaching and learning improvement these
standards also raise the request to create an appropriate information environment to
enhance a continuous programme devolvement.
However, beside these three major activity groups, AACSB's 21 standards also raise
some general requests which can be seen as a roof above the three activities pillared,
as shown in Figure 21 (below). The general requirements for an information system
are the creation of the ability to access information the Business School already holds
and make it available anytime, any place and anywhere required. Beside the
interoperability between used information systems at the Business School, the
standards also stress the need for quality and security of information.
54
54
AACSB requirements for Information Systems
Management Research Teaching and Learning
General
Standard 8
Standard 11
Standard 4 Standard 4
Standard 9 Standard 14
Standard 7
Standard 10 Standard 15
Information available anytime, any place and anywhere
access to existing information
Interoperability between information systems
completeness, quality and security of information
manage day-to day business, policies and legal compliance requirements
access to information required to achieve goals
help support and facilitate business change and business improvement
Relationship management
ready access to research information
access policies and acknowledgement of Intellectual Property
participating in a knowledge society
Support for
• access to information, • collaboration, • publication
across diverse communitiesof interest
Programme development
AACSB requirements for Information Systems
Management Research Teaching and Learning
General
Standard 8
Standard 11
Standard 4 Standard 4
Standard 9 Standard 14
Standard 7
Standard 10 Standard 15
Information available anytime, any place and anywhere
access to existing information
Interoperability between information systems
completeness, quality and security of information
manage day-to day business, policies and legal compliance requirements
access to information required to achieve goals
help support and facilitate business change and business improvement
Relationship management
ready access to research information
access policies and acknowledgement of Intellectual Property
participating in a knowledge society
Support for
• access to information, • collaboration, • publication
across diverse communitiesof interest
Programme development
FIGURE 21 AACSB requirements for Information Systems under one roof 3.7. Information to share
The Business School is a knowledge and information-based institution, so therefore
managing the knowledge and information environment determines an essential part of
bridging the gap between existing knowledge and available knowledge through
appropriate and timely information. Although most of these issues reflect on the
technical restrictions of information systems in accessing, sharing, protecting and
managing information and knowledge, there are also issues about cultural change of
individual and institutional behaviour.
Nevertheless, the primary role of making information accessible to all authorised
members at the Business School, is to ensure and advance teaching, learning and
research to a high quality standard. Therefore all information has to be shared under
the following principles: information should
55
55
be easy to access for authorised members
be securely archived
be accurate
state the latest version
be transparent
fit the purpose
The Business School can be classified as a service offering knowledge and
information-based institution, so that all stored data, information and knowledge can be
seen as valuable assets. These resources have to be managed and shared in the most
efficient way to avoid unnecessary duplication for the benefit of all stakeholders.
However, all stored, shared and managed information at the Business School has to
comply with all legal, regulatory, and ethical requirements.
In order to ensure an effective and well maintained data repository across the Business
School, information systems which are in use to store and disseminate information,
should be constantly reviewed and, if required, replaced with reference to AUT’s
established knowledge management framework.
As a knowledge and information-based institution, the Business School’s knowledge
assets, which are dependent on effective use of information systems, can be grouped
as “Management knowledge assets”, “Research knowledge assets” and “Learning and
Teaching knowledge assets”. The Business School’s knowledge assets and
correspondent components are illustrated in Table 3 (below).
To ensure a learning organisation, the information systems have to create a
framework, culture and infrastructure to support ready access to recorded information,
such as reports, minutes, databases, spreadsheets, policies or any kind of recorded
data the management and administrative staff members require and are authorised to
access. For the academic staff members the information systems has to enable wider
and easier access to information assets of the Business School but also AUT wide to
enhance the ability to respond to commercial, academic and research opportunities.
Furthermore, the information systems should provide for researchers the possibility to
readily access research knowledge across the organisation to collaborate both
externally and internally with other researchers.
56
56
The benefit for lecturers of the establishment of efficient information systems is the
achievement of efficiencies through avoiding disparate and duplicated knowledge
initiatives for their teaching sessions and through the availability of accessing the
information repository through self-service facilities from all classrooms that have a PC
connected to AUT’s network. The improvement of information accessibility would
benefit the Business School’s learning environment in a variety of disseminated
channels including: seminars, workshops, laboratories, studios, computer laboratories
and conferences held at the Business School.
Business School’s Knowledge Assets
Management
Research
Teaching and Learning Management information
Strategies
Policies
Processes and
procedures
Databases - human
resources, financial
facilities etc.
Reports, minutes
Records, archives
Staff expertise
Academic staff research
data and outputs
Doctoral theses
Masters theses and
dissertations
Research management
information
Digital library resources for
research
Research expertise
Academic teaching
resources
Digital learning resources
Student portfolios
Learning management
system
Student and staff
expertise
TABLE 3 Business School’s Knowledge Assets
4. Methodology
This research adopts a social constructivist epistemology. Social Constructivism
emphasizes the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in
society and constructing knowledge based on this understanding (Derry, 1999),
(McMahon, 1997). Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed through
human activity (Kukla, 2000). For the purpose of this research, organisational
Information Systems are considered to be constructed by human actors within a
strategic organisational context, as opposed to the technological, positivist approach
which places IS as an objective entity. Soft Systems Methodology is a qualitative
57
57
methodology used within complex situations, such as the development of an IS, while
maintaining adequate standards of rigour. Applying systems concepts to qualitative
research is particularly suitable for the analysis of Information Systems.
4.1. Soft Systems Methodology
With the intention of enabling organisational process modelling, Peter Checkland and
colleagues started in the 1960’s, in a research programme at the University of
Lancaster, to develop from earlier systems engineering approaches a soft approach of
data modelling (Pidd, 2004). The research programme ran for 30 years and its result is
today known as the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland P., 1999).
Nowadays Soft Systems Methodology is primarily used to analyse complex problems
with diverse definitions of the problem but also in Change Management (Checkland,
1998).
The SSM approach identifies businesses as complex human activity systems and
argues therefore that there is a need to examine each component of a business system
individually as users and end users react differently than in a context analysis of the
whole business system (Patching, 1990). SSM argues that complex systems and
problems can not be solved with adamant and deterministic methods. In response SSM
offers tools to bring several people and stakeholders together to determine, in their
perspective, the nature of a problem situation in conjunction with their views concerning
this problem (Checkland, 1998). SSM also attempts to identify individual perspectives
of the overall purpose of the system.
Checkland (1999) identifies the following principles of Soft Systems Methodology:
1. System environments incorporate unpredictable human activities
2. Business systems are complex as they involve human interactions
3. It is essential to recognise the numerous forms of organisations
4. The business problem is incorrect or imprecisely defined
5. The identified problems are often unstructured and not deterministic
6. Systems need to be seen in a holistic systems context
Peter Checkland identified seven stages of the Soft Systems Methodology approach.
Some stages are classified as ‘real-world activities’ and others as ‘complementation’ or
58
58
‘thinking stages’ (Checkland P., 1999). Although these stages can be listed
numerously, Checkland argues that these stages do not have to be examined in a
successive order (Checkland, 1998). Some stages allow a simultaneous approach but
can also require a revisit of a previous stage.
Figure 22 (below) displays the seven stages of the SSM approach.
FIGURE 22 The seven stages of the SSM approach Source: (G. Elliott, 2004) page 229.
Adopting the SSM approach helps the systems developer to investigate the
organisation’s key activities and processes in order to identify the main stakeholder and
end users within these processes (Checkland P, 2006). The aim of SSM is to use the
end users’ world-view to design and develop systems that fit the organisation and its
involved human activities (Checkland P., 1999). However, as SSM is not
conceptualised to support implementations or system evaluations, this methodology
should ideally be used as a pre step to identify and analyse the systems’ problems and
provide a preparation for the adoption of harder approaches to implement identified
solutions (G. Elliott, 2004).
59
59
The soft system approach uses the following three tools to analyse and design the
information system (Checkland P, 2006):
1. root definitions
2. rich pictures
3. conceptual modelling
4.1.1. Using the CATWOE model to define root definitions
The SSM approach considers the examination of six characteristics clustered in a
model know as CATWOE to guide participants, end users, and other stakeholders to
define a ‘root definition’ (Checkland, 1998). A root definition allows the participants to
formulise in their perspective the main issue of an information system in a single
sentence (Checkland P., 1999). Root definitions are therefore a good way to express in
a condensed and distilled form the different views, concerns and ideas of the involved
participants.
The CATWOE model is composed of the following six characteristics (Checkland P,
2006):
C – Client: a person receiving transformed data
A – Actor: a person transforming data in an information system
T – Transformation: the change of data that takes place, creation of information
W – Weltanschauung: the participants’ world view and assumptions
O – Owner: the sponsor of the information system
E – Environment: internal and external influences on the business environment
Figure 23 (below) illustrates graphically the functionality of the CATWOE model. Within
this model the end users are defined as actors (A) who transform (T) given data into
new information and distribute this information to other end users (Checkland P.,
1999). These users can be classified as the actors’ clients (C) or beneficiaries
(Checkland P, 2006). This data transformation is influenced in the way it is carried out
by the end users’ world perception (W) (Checkland, 1998). The intention of the
‘Weltanschauung’ or world view in the CATWOE model is to take people’s and
businesses’ social, political and cultural views and attitudes as boundaries into
consideration (Checkland P., 1999). Stakeholders who are defined as sponsors of the
60
60
information system are classified as owners (O) (Checkland P, 2006). Owners have the
power and are entitled to influence the use of the information systems. The whole data
transformation and end users’ acting in their world view, is bounded by environmental
(E) constraints (Checkland, 1998).
FIGURE 23 CATWOE Model Source: (Checkland P, 2006) page 41.
4.1.2. Rich pictures
The SSM approach uses rich pictures to capture and express, with icons and symbols,
complex issues related to the system’s environment and boundaries (Pidd, 2004).
These issues might include people and their relationships to each other, organisational
and also technical issues. Expressing relationships in rich pictures might include social
roles and human behaviour within the system’s environment (G. Elliott, 2004). Hence
rich pictures help to highlight and express conflicts which have not been considered
with the other tools, i.e. CATWOE model (Checkland P., 1999). Often rich pictures are
used as communication tools, in combination with the examination of the CATWOE
61
61
model, to encourage participants to disclose their ‘world view’ of the systems’
environment (Checkland P, 2006).
Although rich pictures are a good way of analysing and displaying human to technical
systems interactions, this technique requires a high level of individual freedom for the
participants to enable the debate of organisational and human issues (G. Elliott, 2004).
An example of a rich picture is illustrated in Chapter 2.4.2.2, Figure 18 (above).
4.1.3. Conceptual model
After the examination of the CATWOE model, in conjunction with rich pictures a root
definition can be defined. The knowledge gained of these processes and involved
activities is then related and logically linked in a conceptual model (Checkland P.,
1999). This model should ideally be conceptualised so that it can be understood by all
involved stakeholders. The conceptual model attempts to address some of the
identified issues and illustrate possible solutions (Checkland P, 2006). However, the
conceptual model can also only be used as a tool to carry findings forwards into the
next development phase (Checkland, 1998).
Figure 24 (below) illustrates a general form of a conceptual model of a human activity
system.
FIGURE 24 An example of a conceptual model Source: (Checkland P., 1999) page 287.
62
62
4.2. Methodology of recruiting participants
This research involves six interviewees identified as ‘key informants’ to the information
system development process. The single most important criterion in recruiting
participants was to cover as many operations within the organisation as possible: such
as senior management, academic and administrative staff within the Business School.
In addition interviewees with expertise in IT and IS have been interviewed in order to
examine the capabilities of the currently used information systems at AUT.
In order to identify through interviews the end users’ requirements on information
systems, the follow participants have been nominated, in collaboration with the
Accreditation Manager and Faculty Manager, and have been approved by the Deputy
Dean of Business Faculty.
An Academic staff member
A senior administrator
Senior manager (#1)
Senior manager (#2)
IT manager (#1)
IT manager (#2)
The selected interviewees had to fall into one of the following cluster groups: Staff
member with technical expertise, institutional knowledge, Business School specific
knowledge or end user/client. In addition, it was important that each cluster group
should be represented by at least one interviewee.
The IT manager (#1) has been chosen to provide an understanding of the technical
construction and limitations of existing information systems at AUT. The IT manager
(#2) has been chosen to link this research with existing projects around information
management at AUT (i.e. records management, information architecture). The senior
manager (#2) has been chosen to clarify IS related operations and processes at the
Business School from the management perspective. A representative academic staff
member has been chosen to investigate the special needs of IS for research and
teaching and learning. And finally an administrator has been elected to explore the
needs and requirements of an applied technical level for administrative tasks.
63
63
In order to preserve the participants’ privacy and confidentiality of information the
participants are known by the researcher, but have been given the option to remain
anonymous to the rest of the involved participants and research supervisor. This
ensures that individuals or groups can not be identified in this research or in any kind of
reports. Furthermore, information that will be gained by the researcher is role related to
the organisation and not to each individual carrying out the role.
A “Participant Information Sheet” was given to each interviewee in order to distribute
information about the project. Furthermore only participants have been chosen who are
competent to give fully informed consent.
4.3. Procedure
This dissertation is primarily exploratory research and more based on inductive, rather
than on deductive, research. The procedure for this study consists of the following four
phases which have to be undertaken to elaborate a suitable Information Systems
Development at AUT Business School using Soft Systems Methodology:
Phase 1 – Review of literature and secondary data
Phase 2 – Exploring primary data through conducting interviews
Phase 3 – Data analysis
Phase 4 – Providing recommendations
Phase 1 – Review of literature and secondary data
To ground a foundation of IS specific knowledge, the first phase incorporates a
literature review on the topic of IS Development. Further secondary data, incorporating
completed or planned projects in terms of knowledge management, information
architecture and information systems conducted at AUT, will be examined. The
examination of this secondary data will connect this research to existing projects but
also build on existing knowledge. In addition to AUT specific available internal
information, AACSB’s requirements on quality assurance, in terms of using appropriate
information systems, will be examined as an external environmental constraint.
64
64
Phase 2 – Exploring primary data through conducting interviews
The second phase incorporates the collection and examination of primary data through
conducting six semi-structured interviews with AUT staff members. The purpose of the
interviews is to identify the users’ requirements for information systems but also to
evaluate available IS at the Business School and their use.
The epistemology supporting this research searches for existing knowledge in answers
to the questions like "What do you know?" and "How do you know it?" (Bryman, 2003).
The interviews may result in individual knowledge gaps but the primary focus and
purpose of the interviews is to highlight restrictions and limitations of existing
information systems and provide a list of user requirements. Addressing these kind of
questions in the interviews to analyze the level of knowledge and its acquisition also
covers the focus of ontology i.e. answering questions like "What are the knowable
things?" or basically "What is there?" (Bryman, 2003).
The interview form to be used in this research is semi-structured. This form of interview
allows themes to be explored but keeps the interview very flexible as new questions
can be brought up, dependent on the interviewee responses (Bryman, 2003). These
characteristics allow the interview to flow more like a conversation rather than as a
structured interview with set questions. They also give room for new ideas or issues to
be explored which have not been defined in the preset framework. Nevertheless a set
framework is important to enable an evaluation of the user requirements through a
reliable aggregated and comparable data collection in response to exactly the same
questions.
The following indicative questions will be asked at the interviews:
Interviewees’ use of IS tools and software
General difficulties experienced in locating files
Major advantages and disadvantages of the system
Suggested changes / improvements to the system
65
65
Figure 25 (below) illustrates the content structure of the conducted interviews. The
chosen structure is based on Checkland’s and Poulter’s (2006) proposed guidelines to
build models of purposeful activity.
The first stage of the interview adopts Checkland’s proposed “PQR formula”
(Checkland P., 1999) (p. A23) to examine and scope the interviewees’ purposeful
activities. By answering the PQR questions: ‘What are your core activities?’ (P), ‘How
do you perform them?’ (Q) and ‘Why do you perform them?’ (R), this leads to a first
draft of the root definition. This can be identified as the second stage in the content
structure. In the third stage the CATWOE model is used to examine the interviewees’
IS environments, perceptions and in particular their world view and justification of
activities. The interviewees are also asked to draw a rich picture of their environment
and identified issues whilst the CATWOE model is discussed and examined. This in
depth discussion is used to revisit and redefine the root definition made in the second
stage. Checkland’s proposed fourth stage will not be examined and discussed in the
interview. In the last stage, the interviewees are asked to summarise the identified
issues and their concluded root definition in a conceptual model and propose a solution
for a restructure of the information management.
66
66
FIGURE 25 The content structure of the conducted interviews Source: (Checkland P, 2006) page 40.
67
67
Phase 3 – Data analysis
In the third phase the conducted primary data will be analysed and evaluated in terms
of identifying user requirements of information systems but also evaluate currently used
information systems at AUT Business School (“Knowledge Base”, “Novell GroupWise”,
“I-drive” and “Wiki-Software”). The systems evaluation will be conducted in terms of
possibilities and restrictions in expanding to a ‘file and knowledge sharing’ system.
SSM techniques are used to perform this organizational analysis based on underlying
human activities (Wilson, 1984).
The first stage of the data analysis will strive to identify essential requirements of the
information systems used. These requirements include AACSB’s requirements and the
end users’ requirements. The collected data of each participant in the CATWOE model,
including the rich picture and in particular the defined ‘root definition’ (Checkland,
1995), will be collaborated with the data of the other participants. This aggregated data
will then be analysed against each characteristic of the CATWOE model, using in
particular the ‘Weltanschauung’ to conclude the users’ requirements.
The second stage involves the systems analysis of the four currently used information
systems at the AUT Business School to evaluate whether these systems can be
modified to a ‘file and knowledge sharing’ system. The data given in the PQR formula
will be examined to identify which user group is using a particular system. In
conjunction with the given information in their ‘Weltanschauung’ individual justifications
for the identified use will be provided.
Phase 4 – Providing recommendations
In the fourth and final phase, a realisability analysis is performed to determine the
implications of the user requirements (identified through interviews) upon an existing
information system or a new system. Either modifications to a currently used system, or
system requirements for a new system, will be recommended.
The identified findings and given recommendations are then integrated into a
‘conceptual model’ (Checkland P, 2006). This model is used to propose a solution for
the identified issues.
68
68
4.4. Ethical risks for the participants
As the purpose of the interviews is not to evaluate individual knowledge, capabilities, or
to measure individual staff member performance, this research does not comprise
moral, physical, psychological or emotional risks to the participants. In particular, there
is not considered to be any risk to interviewees’ employment arising from the disclosure
of information. The interviews do not record or measure how intensively or efficiently
each interviewee uses the current available IS. The purpose is focused on each
individual’s skills, experience and activity field in order to highlight as many issues as
possible which have to be solved through a modification or have to be fulfilled by the
new system.
5. Data Analysis
5.1. Introduction to the currently used IS at the Business School
To begin the evaluation of the four information systems currently used at the Business
School (“I-drive”, “Novell GroupWise”, “Knowledge Base” and “Wiki-Software) in terms
of their possibilities and restrictions of ‘file and knowledge sharing’, the four systems
are briefly described in the following paragraphs.
The “I-drive” is the virtual share drive of AUT’s Local Area Network (LAN) which has
been made available to all AUT staff members as individual users or working groups.
Dependent on each user’s position and role, s/he has been given access to a particular
section of the “I-drive” where folders can be created and modified. However, the users
have only minimal control over their folders as they lack the ability to control other
people’s use of these folders. The “I-drive” is backed up to tape to ensure the drive can
be recreated should the server fail.
“Novell GroupWise” is primarily used as an e-mail system but does have some
fundamental document management functionality which can be used to share
documents in a more controlled manner. “Novell GroupWise” incorporates an archive
for e-mails, a separated document store and an advanced search tool that will work on
both e-mails and documents. The stored files in “Novell GroupWise” are kept in a
69
69
different location from data in the virtual “I-drive” but are also secured. This feature
allows file sharing with every staff member who has an e-mail address at AUT.
The “Knowledge Base” is integrated into AUT’s online web database (also known as an
intranet database of frequently asked questions). Users cannot generally upload
information or files to this database as this is done centrally.
The “Wiki-Software” is a web based collaborative information publishing platform where
users can edit pages they have been given rights to. The access to created pages is
controlled through groups of users. As pages are edited, previous versions are kept in
a history list so that these can be recalled by the users. Although this is a quick method
of creating and disseminating information to a group of any size and enhances the
collaboration of sharing information, the “Wiki-Software” only allows the linking to files
stored on a shared drive. Actual storage of files in the “Wiki-Software” is not possible.
5.2. Evaluation of the Interviews
This section evaluates the responses in terms of CATWOE, user requirements and root
definitions. In contrast to Checkland’s approach, these elements are presented in the
following order which is considered to be a more logical format:
A - Who are the actors?
PQR - Formula and Transformation
C - Who are the clients of transformed data?
O - Who are the owners?
E - Environment
W - Weltanschauung
Justification for the use of the systems
Evaluation of the identified user requirements
Root Definition
70
70
5.2.1. A - Who are the actors?
ased on Checkland’s proposed CATWOE model, the interviewees can be classified
he academic staff member chosen for interview (‘Academic’) is a Senior Lecturer in
he senior administrator interviewed (‘Senior Administrator’) represented the interests
he role of the first senior manager interviewed (#1) is to manage and co-ordinate
he second senior manager to be interviewed (#2) is required to manage the
he senior IT manager (#1) works with project groups, directors and line managers in a
he second interviewee with IT expertise (#2) works closely with the AUT governance
to help in the development of IT-strategies, policies and plans. In collaboration with the
B
either as actors, owners or clients of a data transformation activity. Although only some
of the interviewed persons have in (regards to their position) a dual function in the
CATWOE model, both as an ‘owner’ and ‘actor’ of the transformation activities all
interviewees can be considered as ‘actors’ as all are processing and sharing
information.
T
the Management Faculty. Before working at AUT the lecturer worked in a range of
senior international positions in the private sector. S/he is also an active member of the
University’s trade union (ASTE).
T
of administrative staff members at the Business School. This person’s role includes
providing assistance to senior faculty managers and conducting independent project
management, therefore requiring a high level of skills and knowledge of information
systems and ICTs.
T
faculty resources. This person relies heavily on good information management and file
sharing systems.
T
operations and processes in the Business School. In order to enable quality assurance
through efficient staff and student oriented support services the interviewed person
also relies on appropriate file and information management tools.
T
partnership approach to introduce improvements in information systems and related
projects. Partners include other departments within the Information Technology
Services Directorate, internal suppliers, external suppliers, and most importantly –
clients across all departments within AUT.
T
71
71
5.2.2. PQR - Formula and Transformation
Recom e root definitions based only on the
ssessment of the CATWOE model, the following section includes the examination of
(Q) - How is this information transformed?
Identify e three questions will provide the
pportunity to draft, at the end of this section, a root definition for each respondent. The
What kind of information is processed and transformed?
IT-Strategy team this person also hosts and monitors IT and information systems
development projects to enable AUT the application of well matched information tools
to corresponding operation processes. S/he is also responsible for continuously
reviewing the “information architecture” - information formats and structures, and
ensuring that all IT and information systems development projects at AUT are
consistent with AUT’s strategic direction and IT policies and values.
mended by Checkland (1999) not to formulis
a
the “PQR - Formula”. The concept of this formula is simple: Do ‘P’ by ‘Q’ in order to
achieve ‘R’. The examination of this equation will answer the following questions:
(P) - What kind of information is processed and transformed?
(R) - Why is this information transformed?
ing each interviewee’s answers to thes
o
modification of these drafts by the interviewees will be covered at the end of this
chapter.
P –
The ac essing information
within the Business School’s teaching environment. Firstly, the position requires the
ademic interviewee described three general purposes for proc
creation, storage and sharing of information in a ‘multiple discipline environment’. This
indicates sharing information about student assessments, study guides, student
performances in exams and assignments and their progress and lesson plans. Also
samples of student work and historical information need to be available and accessible
to numerous lecturers within, and across, disciplines. This can also involve the
integration of a new staff member, hence a new information sharing environment.
Secondly, academic staff members have to distribute and share information about
student marks with the “Programme Administration Team”, Discipline Chairs or Director
of Business Interdisciplinary Studies.
72
72
groups and managers but also with the AUT
2. general personal assistant support in managing appointments
itor and control recording of staff leave and
The d sharing of health
nd safety documents with all allied staff members at the Business School,
or manager (#2) in terms of data processing and
ansformation are monitoring of student numbers forecasting, programme
” and as an
wner”. S/he is an “actor” as s/he is using the systems to communicate and share
nly
sponsible for monitoring projects and IT developments. This role involves sharing
The senior administrator has to manage several documents and share these with
different stakeholders from academic
governance. This includes four categories of file creation, distribution and sharing:
1. management of travel documents
3. managing HR information i.e. mon
time schedules for staff performance reviews
4. monitoring and managing general staffing documentation.
senior manager (#1) deals with the creation, transformation an
a
procurement information of resource materials, asset inventory and the management of
resource material in databases.
The main activities of the seni
tr
development information, general staff and student related administration.
The IT manager (#1) has a dual role in CATWOE model, both as an “actor
“o
information with other stakeholders. The main scope of his/her duties is to monitor
projects on which the departmental system analysts and business analyst are working
and to develop with other line managers concepts such as “information architecture”
which considers him/her to be also classified as an “owner”. Furthermore s/he shares
departmental issues such as budgeting and HR duties with the IT Service Director.
A similar dual role applies to the IT manager (#2). The IT manager (#2) is mai
re
project documents, developing IT processes and best practice within the department, in
addition to developing policy documents with IT managers, directors and executives.
Minor departmental issues such as finance and budgeting are as also discussed and
shared on a regular basis.
73
73
Q – How is information transformed?
The se rive” for sharing files in common with the
majority of academic staff members at the Business School. After files have been
rent use of the information systems. For example,
/he uses mainly “Novell GroupWise” to send files as e-mail attachments to her/his
plies to the senior manager (#1). All files are
ainly distributed and shared through the e-mail function in “Novell GroupWise”. In
hares in particular documents for student forecast and
rogramme development via e-mail as attachments. This again means that every staff
nior lecturer currently uses only the “I-d
created and placed in the appropriate folder on the “I-drive”, e-mails are sent to
colleagues to inform them about the storage of a new or updated file. “Knowledge
base”, “Wiki-Software” and “Novell GroupWise” are not used at all by academic staff
members as a file sharing system.
The senior administrator makes diffe
s
relevant “clients” or beneficiaries. The senders, as well as the recipients, save a
version of the document on their personal desktop drives. Changes to the documents
made by the e-mail recipients are sent via e-mail in a modified document back to the
original sender. A manual check is made of all amendments which are condensed to a
final document. Through a manual check in the document of the several responses, the
assistant manually processes all changes to the original document. Besides a few files
containing general information which is stored on the “I-drive”, the Executive Assistant
to Dean and most of the administrators mainly share files via e-mail as attachments
and store files on personal share drives.
A similar approach to using the systems ap
m
contrast to the administrator, most of the files though are stored in parts on the “I-drive”
but also on personal share drives like the laptop. Similar to the administrators’
approach, modified documents by her/his “clients” are manually checked and stored on
a personal drive. The updated files are then uploaded to the “I-drive” to disseminate the
information. Although the senior manager (#1) is using his/her own set saving and
naming standards, this approach certainly increases the creation of numerous
duplicated files on several drives (but also including the same drive) if versioning of
files is not kept under control.
The senior manager (#2) also s
p
member within this particular “circle of information sharing group” is saving a version of
the file on their personal share drives. Although a final version of the document is
saved at the end of the process on the “I-drive” or “Knowledge Base”, this approach of
74
74
er (#1) uses a specific project
anagement system called “I-Tool” to monitor projects a special expertise working
monitoring projects is used by the IT manager (#2) and his/her
-team. “Novell GroupWise”, and the supported feature of sharing files and documents
Why is information transformed?
file sharing is creating (similar to the administrator’s and other senior manager’s
approach) a vast amount of stored duplications in different drives and, in particular,
different versions of the document. Unfortunately, even within small information sharing
groups there are no set naming and storing standards.
As shown in the rich picture, Appendix 6, the IT manag
m
group or a project steering committee is working on. However, alongside the live
documentation on “I-Tool”, all project related created files and information within these
groups are also saved on the “I-drive”. In contrast to the Business School’s folder
structure on the “I-drive”, based on fields of responsibility, the IS department structured
the folder based on projects. Departmental issues, such as budgeting and staffing
issues, are shared within the drafting period via e-mail and only the final version is then
stored on the “I-drive”.
A different approach to
IT
within this software, is used as the main platform to shared project related files within
the team. This feature allows sharing of files with every staff member who has an e-
mail address at AUT. As shown in the rich picture, Appendix 7, the development of
policy documents, IT processes and best practice with other IT managers, directors
and executives in turn are shared within the draft phase via e-mail. Only the final
version is then disseminated on “Knowledge Base”. Although departmental issues such
as budgeting and staffing issues are shared with her/his director via e-mail
attachments, the final version of a document is, unlike the IT manager’s (#1) approach,
not saved on the “I-drive” but shared in “Novell GroupWise” through the shared folder
function.
R –
The ju tivities, data transactions and use of the
available file sharing system is based on the need for working and sharing information
stification for the above classified ac
within teams. The examination of the “PQR formula” based on the transformation
modelling of purposeful activities in a rich picture led each interviewee to their draft of a
root definition.
75
75
he academic staff member identifies with the statement “A file sharing information
5.2.3. C – Who are the clients of transformed data?
s shown in the senior lecturer’s rich picture, Appendix 2 s/he defines colleagues of the
he senior administrator’s rich picture shown in Appendix 3 indicates probably a wider
T
system is used to facilitate students’ learning in a team environment” the need for a
system supporting collaborative working. The senior administrator justifies her/his
carried out activities and transformations with her/his perception of personal best
practice to share confidential information. Hence the assessment of the PQR-formula
led to the following statement: “There is a need for an information system to support
the “clients” in the most efficient and effective way.” The main purpose of the senior
manager’s (#1) activities in information sharing with other staff members of the
Business School is based on the responsibility of managing the Business School’s
resources and allied administration. In the first draft of the root definition the senior
manager (#1) clearly identified with the statement: “The way to use available
information systems at the Business School is not clearly communicated, especially
because the users play a passive role through not expressing their needs but also
through their low willingness to adopt changes”, a lack of active and innovative
collaboration along with introduced and implemented technology. The senior
manager’s (#2) role and drafted root definition clearly underpins the need and main
purpose of “Using the information systems to manage the operations at the Business
School in the most effective and efficient way”. The IT manager (#1) scopes the
responsibilities in her/his role as the needs for “improving the use of the information
systems across AUT to obtain the investments made into these systems” as a clear
root definition draft in terms of investigating new systems. The IT manager (#2) defines
in her/his root definition draft the purpose of her/his and the department’s role and
function of “hosting and monitoring the development and implementation of IT projects”
as a necessity for successful IT-development integrations and implementations at AUT.
A
same or a different discipline, discipline chairs, the Programmes Administration
Manager as well as programme administrators as her/his “clients” or “beneficiaries”.
T
scope of stakeholders or “clients” who rely on an accurate, timely and adequate
activities and data transformation performance. In terms of managing the travel
documents, there are academic staff members as well as allied staff members who rely
on an adequate data transformation and distribution. In terms of the diary and
appointment management there are mainly executives and line managers who rely on
76
76
The senior manager’s (#1) clients or beneficiaries of her/his data transformation can be
he senior manager’s (#2) working environment involves, of all the interviewees,
he IT manager’s (#1) “clients” of the processed transformations are, in general, other
an accurate personal assistance support. This role also involves certain assistance to
school managers in managing internal HR matters such as monitoring allied staff leave,
time schedules for staff performance reviews and the relocation expenses for new
academic staff members.
classified in three groups. The first group is determined by staff members of the
Business School such as the administration teams and academic staff members.
Within this group, information is mainly shared via e-mail but also through the
establishment of shared folders in “Novell GroupWise” or the “I-drive”. The second
group is classified as staff members working externally to the Business School, such as
procurement, human resource, finance and IT departments. Information and file
sharing within this group is based on e-mailing files as attachments or to share files
within a small group through a shared folder in “Novell GroupWise”. The third and final
group includes file and information sharing via e-mails with parties outside AUT such
as suppliers.
T
probably the biggest range of “clients” or beneficiaries who rely on accurate data
transformation and distribution on a regular basis. The senior manager (#2) distributes
received student forecast information from the administrative team to several
correspondent executives and Finance Manager. As shown in the rich picture Appendix
5, the senior manager (#2) is sharing programme development information with the
Faculty Registrar and the School Managers. Monitoring staff leave and other
administrative and departmental tasks have to be shared in an interactive form with
personal assistants.
T
departments which can be identified as internal customers, the administrators and
developers in project teams, project steering committees and other line managers
across AUT and certainly the IT Service Director. As shown in the rich picture,
Appendix 7, the IT manager (#2) identified similar to the IT manager (#1) several other
departments across AUT who work in the same project groups or working groups such
as the “academic portfolio development” or “information architecture” as her/his
“clients”.
77
77
5.2.4. O - Who are the owners?
As shown in Appendix 2-7 the interviewees identify, in their perception of the Business
he senior lecturer identifies the Programme Administration Manager, the Business
The senior manager (#1), senior manager (#2), IT manager (#1) and IT manager (#2)
5.2.5. E - Environment
The senior lecturer’s activities and transformations displayed in the rich picture,
School’s and AUT’s environment, some similar but also several different “owners”. In
their perception these identified “owners” have the power to influence and change
regulations, processes or the use of IT resources.
T
School’s executives, the director of the Centre for Business Interdisciplinary Studies,
the discipline chairs, the IT department, as well as New Zealand’s legislation, as
owners. In turn, the senior administrator classified the IT department, Faculty Manager,
Registrar, Resource Manager, Human Resource Management and the Business
School’s executives as her/his “owners” with power to influence her/his method of
working with the information systems.
can certainly be classified as actors who transform data, but can also be seen as
owners in the system’s environment with the power to influence and intervene in the
approach of IT systems and resources at the Business School. Thus, besides her/his
own role as an owner, the senior manager (#1) defines the Faculty Manager and
School Managers as owners with similar or higher power to influence the use of
information systems at the Business School. The senior manager (#2) is picturing the
same constellation but adds the Dean and Deputy Dean of the Business School to the
picture. In turn the IT manager (#1) identifies only herself/himself, the IT Service
Director and the AUT Governance as owners. The IT manager (#2) adds to the IT
manager’s (#1) exposed picture the IT Strategy Team, E.M.T. (Executive Management
Team) and other departments such as Finance, HR and Marketing etc. as powerful
owners.
Appendix 2, is framed by the law and its privacy acts for the legal storage of student
work, the university exam board and administrative regulations and restrictions as the
internal environment. The academic also describes the necessity of processing only
transactions which fit within discipline but also within the constraints of other disciplines
as a further internal environmental factor. In turn, the New Zealand Institute of
78
78
5.2.6. W - Weltanschauung
This section describing each interviewee’s ‘world view’ or “Weltanschauung” explains
he academic staff member complains of not being informed about capabilities behind
Chartered Accountants (NZICA) and its requirements on programme and paper
curriculum is identified by the senior lecturer as an external environmental factor. The
senior administrator classifies in her/his rich picture New Zealand’s law with its
collective agreements and privacy acts as an external environmental factor. The AUT
Governance, available IT hard and software resources combined with appropriate and
professional IT staff support service are the main influencing internal environmental
parties. In the senior manager’s (#1) perception the environment influencing the use of
systems at the Business School is referred primarily to external bodies such as New
Zealand’s government and its legal legislations, technology, banks, global market, and
competitors. In turn, the senior manager (#2) believes that mainly internal factors, such
as the diversity within teams and the different perceptions of their roles within the team,
and the Business School’s environment lead to an insufficient use of IT resources to
create a knowledge sharing environment. The IT manager (#1) believes that the AUT
Governance, also known as the E.M.T (Executive Management Team), alongside
AUT’s senior management and also the commercial pressure for efficiency determine
the parameters of AUT’s working environment. The IT manager (#2) pictures in her/his
rich picture shown in Appendix 7 the same constellation but adds the departments with
their powerful role as well as New Zealand’s legislation - in particular the public records
act as important environmental factors.
why the ‘actors’ and ‘owners’ use the information systems. In this sense, this section
describes the value that people place on these particular systems and therefore
provides the justification as to why (or why not) these persons use these systems and
how they use them.
T
the information systems or about alternative approaches to sharing files. The senior
lecturer describes in his “Weltanschauung” the creation of an environment by individual
groups of academics. This environment is based on the perception of the need for
individuals/actors to create own forms of information sharing or even the creation of
isolated information systems (e.g. databases). These micro systems are considered as
unnecessary by other stakeholders. The academic’s reasons here are the cost and the
lack of communication between allied staff and academics when establishing user
requirements. The lecturer also argues that there is no understanding of the
79
79
he senior administrator stated that the main reason for sharing files via e-mail is due
he senior manager (#1) believes that the problem outlined above is due to the use of
information sharing processes between academic staff members, administrators and
management. S/he also believes that not involving academic staff members in the
information systems development process is the main cause of this problem. However,
in turn, s/he argues that academics do not have time, nor even want to be involved in,
systems developments.
T
to her/his mistrust of the “I-drive” in accessing files. However the administrators are
also under instructions from their superiors and managers to use particular systems in
a certain way. This results in some frustration and apathy which then lead most of the
staff members to resign themselves and “join the flow”. Administrators often learn
about systems from their own experiences as they lack the knowledge and training that
would provide them with better alternatives. Consequently, it is common practice to
store files in personal ‘C’ drives.
T
irregular forms of communication for informing staff members of system changes and
new features. The use of newsletters, notice boards and verbal communication in
meetings acts to reduce the proactive involvement of staff members in the change
process. Furthermore, the senior manager (#1) believes that online training would be a
valuable method of making staff members more familiar with available software and
systems. Training should also be made compulsory and driven by senior managers in
the Business Faculty. This respondent also considers it necessary that staff PCs be
continuously updated with the latest available software and the IT department should
regularly evaluate users’ needs in this regard to help prevent reduced performance.
According to this respondent a “Business IT User-Group” consisting of representatives
of each department has been established with the purpose of disseminating
information to end users about IT issues, opportunities, use of systems and legislation.
However, communication from this group has been poor, with the result that little has
improved. This interviewee also claims that the mentality amongst the Business
School’s staff members is more like to “join the flow”, instead of asking for training or
for explanations as to how activities could be carried out in a different and probably
more effective and efficient way. Many problems have been caused by a laissez-faire
attitude towards staff performance in the past few years, which has led to an
underestimation of the need for setting and implementing operational standards at the
Business School. Although this attitude has changed since AUT became a university in
2000, the steady development of systems and technologies since then has led to the
80
80
lthough the senior manager (#2) argues that training for new staff members exists,
The senior manager (#2) desires the implementation of file naming and file storage
The IT manager (#1) described in her/his ‘Weltanschauung’ a strong need to change
situation that the Business School and its employees attempt only to keep up rather
than to keep ahead of these developments.
A
s/he still agrees that it is insufficient and unstructured. The result is that the working
environment is more likely relationship driven rather than operation or result driven.
S/he also believes that this has now become a major concern as most staff members
do not know their position in the Business School’s operational chain or which
processes are related or dependent on each individual. This respondent also believes
that the access to folders on the “I-drive” has to be changed from a centralised to
decentralised approach as it has became, overtime, too difficult to get quick access to
folders. This is in particular an important need as the “I-drive” is determined to be
currently the prime file storage. However, in order to increase efficiency simultaneously
file naming and sharing standards need to be implemented. In terms of a continuous
improvement the senior manager (#2) highlights the importance of involving every staff
member to identify and address issues, in particular to be able to do more in depth
analysis of existing IT resources. In turn staff members could be rewarded for good
collaboration in this proactive staff involvement.
standards based on the upcoming public records act, and amove away from using the
“I-drive” through the implementation of a new system whereby all files are stored in one
single place like a “big pot” which enables every user access to all files except those
which are classified as access restricted and giving should also be given by each user.
In order to achieve this vision, the senior manager (#2) believes that certain actions,
such as restructuring the owner’s power and field of activity, the establishment of
principles and implementing compulsory training sessions, need to be taken to enable
monitoring of individual performances.
the organisational culture with its high level of freedom for AUT’s staff members. S/he
suggests applying the top down principle but not from a control perspective but more
from a communication and delegation principle. The IT manager (#1) argues that there
is no efficiency across AUT as nobody, and especially most managers, don’t want to be
accountable for initiated project outcomes. There is even no monitoring of
performances. S/he even believes most of them are scared of change. However, the IT
manager (#1) also believes there is no added value to centralising the upload of files
81
81
The IT manager (#2) admits that insufficient IT training is provided to staff members.
imilar to the IT manager (#1), the IT manager (#2) believes there are big issues in
and folder access given to a particular position. Hence, this operation should instead
be processed automatically through the system itself. Although the IT manager (#1)
identifies AUT compared to other universities with the lowest administration/academic
staff ratio and functions through the integration of all faculties more likely as a unit, s/he
believes that AUT must face strong commercial pressure for efficiency. Therefore s/he
identifies the implementation of appropriate IS tools as a key success factor.
However, at the same time s/he argues that the IT department was not allowed by
CEPD (Centre for Educational & Professional Development) to provide IT trainings.
Although CEPD argued they would be in charge of staff development training sessions,
this has never been offered. S/he also argues that some departments, such as Human
Resources, do not collaborate in this manner as they refused the proposed idea of
implementing an “IT user license” to each staff member. In order to receive this license
all users have to pass a certain level of skills in commonly used software applications
such as MS Word or MS Excel.
S
AUT governance as there seems to be no delegation of authorities in the field of
expertise or even realisation the growing importance of using IT in the most effective
and efficient way. The IT manager (#2) also argues that the IT Strategy department
does not have sufficient power to develop and address IT issues as they are supposed
to be. In the current approach departments such as HR, Finance or Marketing drive, in
collaboration with the IS team, the development of new applications or technologies.
The main purpose of the IT-Strategy team is then only to host and monitor the
development process. Hence the need to drive the implementation of a ‘business
enterprise architecture and information management with best practice’ in order to
avoid high intangible costs through not using IS in the most efficient way. In regards to
a calculation the IT manager (#2) proposed to AUT governance, the costs for file
storage are increasing exponentially. The calculated file storing cost in 2008 is NZ$
250,000 and increasing by 2010, in regards to the new public records act, up to NZ$
1.5 million. By 2026 the storage costs might even consume the entire AUT revenue. As
the new public records act even requires the storage of certain e-mails for up to 25
years the IT manager (#2) highlights explicitly the importance of changing the habit of
sharing files in e-mail attachments. Although AUT started with the foundation of a
Knowledge Management group, the IT manager (#2) believes that good information
management needs to be set up first before Knowledge Management is even possible.
82
82
5.2.7. Justification for the use of the systems
order to transform, store, share and retrieve files via the “I-drive”, the senior lecturer,
lthough there are several disadvantages in using the “I-drive” as a files sharing
This interviewee is currently evaluating and identifying, in collaboration with the IT
manager (#1) and other stakeholders, the user needs across the entire AUT for an
‘enterprise document management system’ which will enable the sharing of files in the
most efficient and effective way.
In
senior administrator and the senior manager (#2) experienced several difficulties. They
argue that the “I-drive” does not provide any information about what kind of files or
information is available on the network-drive, who modified and published the file last
and what version is the retrieved file. A further important missed feature of the “I-drive”
is the display of any other with related content files to the retrieved file. The lack of
version and track control with no search function, disclosure of related files and
ownership of the file makes it difficult to operate with minimised resources and produce
desired results. It also involves taking a high risk that one may not be working on the
latest version of a document and therefore decisions may be based on inaccurate and
untimely information. The senior administrators in particular do not use the “I-drive” in
an extensive way as they claim a lack of folder access security means they do not
know who else has access to the same folders on the share drive. Providing a shared
drive to the administrators seems not to be the best information system to share or
store files other than general, rather than confidential, data. The IT manager (#2)
admits that security of access control on a network storage system like the “I-drive” is a
significant issue. The senior manager (#2) is using the “I-drive” not with the main
purpose to share files but more to disseminate final versions of documentations.
Furthermore, s/he referred to the centralised system whereby the senior manager (#1)
grants permission for access to folders as a definite disadvantage of the “I-drive” as it
can take several days to provide access permission to a particular folder. Several other
disadvantages, such as the intransparency of folder contents and limited accessibility
to existing information, were pointed out.
A
system, the familiarity of the system and the desire to avoid maintaining files in two
different locations are its biggest advantages, which might have led the senior lecturer
and probably many other staff members to “join the flow” and use the “I-drive” instead
of the folder sharing feature in “Novell GroupWise”. Furthermore interviewees argue
83
83
that there was, and is still, a lack of information and promotion of the possibilities of
sharing files through “Novell GroupWise”.
“Novell GroupWise” can be used to share files either through its folder sharing function
or in its use as an e-mail software application. However, apart from the IT manager
(#2), every interviewee is using “Novell GroupWise” as an e-mail application to share
files. The interviewees state that normally documents are e-mailed as an attachment to
a single person or group of clients. If any changes to the document, occur the clients
normally e-mail a modified file back to the sender. The initial sender is then usually
manually carries out all single changes in the initial send file. Processing file
maintenance and control in this particular manner is without question the most detailed
and secure file control technique but also the most time consuming way of managing
files. Furthermore, the interviewees assert that they do not store files in “Novell
GroupWise” mail box. Files are stored only on their personal ’C-drive’ or their personal
‘H-network drive’. This approach ensures, on the one hand, a track changing control
and probably also a kind of version control as it is assumed the attached file in the e-
mail is the latest version but results, on the other hand, also in the loss of historical and
holistic file storage. Furthermore, as there are no agreed standards of file naming and
storing, this method increases the risk of file losses, as files are individually archived,
based on no agreed standards, on personal share drives and only selected users whoh
have been given proxy access are able to retrieve archived files. The justification for
this working method is simply founded in the quick accessibility to the system but more
in the high flexibility in the determination with whom a particular file needs to be shared
with. In turn this method of file sharing also increases the creation of vast duplications
stored in several personal drives which also makes it impossible to share knowledge
across disciplines or departments. The senior manager (#2) even points to the worst
case scenario which is the risk of a loss of intellectual property.
Although “Novell GroupWise” is a shared service across AUT and offers, besides the e-
mail functionality also folder sharing features with control file, access the IT manager
(#1) as well as the IT manager (#2) point out some technical issues which might
destroy the form of the files as the software renames and codes the files once they are
saved in “Novell GroupWise”. Furthermore, the system offers the possibility to store
files but does not archive them in a systematic manner. However, the IS manger
highlights a further advantage of the low systems administration which is covered by
one person for more than 2,000 users.
84
84
It is most likely that all staff members at the Business School are aware of the
“Knowledge Base” and its possibility of sharing files. However, this intranet based
system comprises a lack of security in regards to external file access and also
unrestricted access for internal users which is again not wanted for confidential data.
Furthermore, most users complain that information is rarely and slowly updated on this
system. This seems to be a reason why this platform is seldom used to share files. In
addition the system’s search function also does not deliver accurate search results.
Therefore the “Knowledge Base” is nowadays only used as a ‘staff work area’ to
provide general information such as presentations, health care policies, handbooks,
guides, policies and regulations etc. The senior manager (#2) argues that the
centralised upload of information is of advantage as the published information can be
monitored and controlled to meet certain standards. In turn the IT manager (#2) argues
that this web centre developed shared service across AUT has, besides the lack of
security and centralised upload, also a further big disadvantage as the “Knowledge
Base” has only a limited storage capacity which slows the system down as more files
are stored.
The senior lecturer, executive assistants, senior administrator and managers argue that
almost all Business School staff members, including themselves, are not aware what
capabilities the “Wiki-Software” offers and some are not even aware that the software
exists.
The IT manager (#2) who was the initial developer of the “Wiki-Software” identifies the
software as a good possibility to share information e.g. of projects as everyone can add
information to an existing text and can be therefore classified as a ‘self managed’
system. However, s/he also clarifies that this software does not have the capability of
file management as files can only be linked in the posted ‘Wiki-page’ but not stored.
Furthermore, s/he argues the software is still user unfriendly and requires several
training sessions so that users will be able to use the system.
Table 4 (below) summarises the use of the four information systems by each
interviewee. Supposing all file sharing activities performed by each interviewee is in
total 100 %, the table below shows, for each user group, the breakdown of all file
sharing activities performed by each information system to highlight in a condensed
form which system is used most to share files but also to indicate the different
approaches to the systems by the interviewees. As above examined and displayed in
85
85
the table below, the e-mail function of “Novell GroupWise” seems to be, regardless of
the user group, the most used system approach to share files.
User Group I-Drive Novell GroupWise
e-mail function
Novell GroupWise Shared folder
function
Knowledge Base
Wiki-Software
Σ
‘Academics’
20 %
80 %
-
-
-
100 %
‘Administrators’
10 %
80 %
-
10 %
-
100 %
‘Senior manager (#1)’ 20 % 40 % 20 % 20 % - 100 %
‘Senior manager (#2)’ 30 % 60 % - 10 % - 100 %
‘IT manager (#1)’ 50 % 40 % 10 % - - 100 %
‘IT manager (#2)’ - 10 % 70 % 10 % 10 % 100 %
TABLE 4 Use of the four evaluated information systems by the interviewees
The systems applications shown in percentages above in Table 4 are graphically
displayed in Figure 26 (below). This graphic illustrates for each interviewee the different
use and approach of the available systems at the Business School to share files with
other users.
86
86
FIGURE 26 Conventions of the Business School’s systems to share files
Table 5 (below) displays and summarises the advantages and disadvantages,
identified in the interviews, of each system application in terms of a file sharing
systems. In addition the table highlights and identifies the “I-drive” as a familiar and
primarily used file sharing system but indicates, at the same time, numerous
disadvantages which form the justification for most in Chapter 5.2.8 (below) identified
user requirements.
87
87
I-drive
Advantages
Disadvantages
primarily used to store files centralised access giving to a folder
familiar system
inflexible and time consuming access giving
to folders
possibility of multiple folder access giving not all users have access to all information
intransparent structure
uncertainty of stored information
encourages users to work in small groups
rather than in the “big Business School team”
high costs of sharing files
no track and version control
no search function
creation of duplications
opacity of folder contents
Novell GroupWise
Advantages
Disadvantages
quick individual file sharing via e-mail
low administration of the system
no version control, same file is saved on
several personal drives
ing usability for e mails but also for file shar ed via e-mail creation of duplications if shar
quick system accessibility
flexible file access giving
does not archive documents
all files can be accessed through search
function
Knowledge Base
Advantages
Disadvantages
in the process of renami ordings to make ng w
the system more attractive
Centralised upload takes too much time to
publish information
d, control of centralised information uploa
published information
information in the Not good security of
intranet
UT shared service across A apacity to store information Limited c
Bad search function
No restricted information access
Wiki-Software
Advantages
Disadvantages
self managed end users system by the not suitable to share files
developed at AUT files can not be stored or archived
suitable to share information i.e. of projects
user unfriendly
difficult to use – trainings required
ABLE 5 Advantages and disadvantages of the evaluated information systems T
88
88
able 6 (below) summarises the interviewees’ responses regarding their IS
5.2.8. Evaluation of the identified user requirements
T
requirements, which they perceive would provide a more efficient and effective use of a
file sharing system. These responses are outlined below in more detail.
Identified user requirements
1. Systems’ accessibly from outside AUT
2. Decentralised folder access control by the end user
3. Classification of files (private, public or confidential)
4. Search function + view keyword related files
5. Display author of the file
6. Automatically and chronological file archiving
7. Version control of stored files
8. Track changes (who modified and saved the file)
9. Files need to be stored in one system
10. System needs to be flexible for changes in the Business School
ABLE 6 Identified user requirements
he IT manager (#1) and IT manager (#2) in particular have been asked to comment
1. With regards to the first requirement “systems accessibly from outside AUT” the
T
T
whether the identified user requirements can be realised with an existing system or
whether a new system needs to be purchased. These IT experts will comment in the
following paragraphs on each identified user requirement.
IT manager (#2) states that this request is not possible with any of the four
assessed information systems. However, the request and need for a ‘mobility
working’ has been recognised by the IT manager (#2). Therefore s/he is
currently developing a concept which enables all staff members across AUT to
log in from outside AUT into the LAN-Network and have access to all files the
staff members would have if they log in at AUT campus. This concept is called
‘virtual desktop’ and works similar to the ‘HRISS’ concept which is a web based
front end page of the “Pay Global” information system located in AUT’s LAN-
Network. The concept of the ‘virtual desktop’ is designed to function as a portal
89
89
. The necessity of the users’ request for “decentralised folder access control by
. The IT manager (#2) concedes that a classification of files i.e. in private, public
a new file system.
where staff members can work on their documents stored at AUT server.
Although the user is accessing these documents, these files remain “physically”
on AUT server which also enhances the security of documents through daily
server back ups. The IT manager (#2) is striving to finish this project by mid
2008.
2
the end user” is questioned by both IT experts. The IT manager (#2) admits that
there is an existing possibility in “Novell GroupWise” to carry out this request
but argues at the same time that there are better approaches to empower end
users for access control. The reason for this is the labour intensive and time
consuming approach of this feature. Every stakeholder has to be entered,
maintained and deleted manually from a group list. Hence, this approach seems
only to be appropriate for small groups such as project or working groups.
3
or confidential files is only possible with “Novell GroupWise” and only to a
certain extent through a manual classification. The IT managers and a panel of
IT professionals are currently investigating user requirements across AUT to
conceptualise a model for an ‘enterprise document management system’ which
might enhance the classification of files in e.g. business records, private
records, student related files, confidential or public information. This new
system will use ‘meta-tags’ in a ‘document index’ to classify, on the one hand,
files but, on the other hand, also controls file access. Meta-tags are HTML or
XHTML codes placed as tags in the head section of a document but are often
not directly visible to the user. Meta-tags can be used to specify a document by
its content, keywords or any other specification. This categorisation helps
search engines to find and retrieve files correctly. The IT and IT manager (#1)
argue that the use of meta-tags will enable a file-search function by author, role,
position, project, topics, etc. The implementation of this “information
architecture” in the new software will allow users to classify the files. The IT
manager (#1) in turn believes AUT should purchase a software which scans
and classifies all files automatically before they are stored on the server.
Although these investigations have only recently started the IT manager (#1)
believes that the new public records acts which becomes effective in 2010 will
increase the development pressure on AUT and enhance the implementation of
90
90
4. earch function in “Novell GroupWise” and in “Knowledge
Base” the interviewees argue that the search results are inaccurate. Both IT
5. anager (#2) admits that the users’ request to “display the author of the
file” is an important issue in terms of intellectual property protection. S/he also
6. plains that a current project is investigating the
possibilities for “automatic and chronological file archiving”. However, both
7. tored files” is currently
possible only through manual input and maintenance in “Novell GroupWise”.
8. borative working environment the
request for “track changes” is an important feature as it enables monitoring of
9. information architecture at AUT does
not allow the storage of files in one single system. Furthermore, spreading files
and information in four different systems leads to frustration for many staff
Although there is a s
professionals express, once more, that the approach of ‘meta-tags’ used in an
‘enterprise document management system’ might provide more accurate search
results.
The IT m
believes that this request has to be addressed as a major issue in the
considerations of purchasing a new software. However, the IT manager (#1)
also highlights the possibility of an owner search in “Novell GroupWise” as time
solution in the meantime.
The IT manager (#2) ex
managers explain that currently this function is only to a very small extent
possible in “Novell GroupWise”. The reason for this limitation is based on the
limited storage capacity which might slow the system down once it is used.
However, both believe that the new system will allow chronological file archiving
if files are classified by year or month in the meta-tag.
Both IT professionals argue a “version control of s
Although this request has not been investigated so far by the IT department the
IT manager (#2) believes a version control will be possible with the new
‘enterprise document management system’.
The IT manager (#2) affirms that in a colla
files. S/he points to “Novell GroupWise” as the only system that provides similar
track changing information. However, this system does not state any
information of changes made in the file.
The interviewees argue that the current
91
91
10.
chool” and admits, at the same time, that this is one of the
biggest limitations all four currently used systems have. S/he believes there is a
Based on the individually composed rich pictures and CATWOE model shown in
Appendix 2-7, the interviewees highlighted their major issue of information and file
haring with the current available systems in the Business School’s environment in the
g in a team or along with other teams to facilitate
tudents learning”. The senior lecturer highlights with this statement the importance of
g existing information systems to share
les”. This root definition clearly underpins the need for implementing standards but
members. The current information architecture seems to make information
retrieving difficult as files can rarely be found. This might have led the
interviewees to request “files storage in one single system”. Both IT managers
are convinced the new ‘enterprise document management system’ with its file
classification through meta-tags will allow storing and retrieving files from one
single system.
The IT manager (#2) agrees that a “system needs to be flexible for changes in
the Business S
need for a ‘virtual presentation layer’ to solve this issue. This concept is based
on a system with a set framework and flexible content management. This
proposed flexible content management will allow for instant file classifications
through a ‘document index’ or ‘meta-tags’. In the event that the company
changes its operational structure the ‘virtual presentation layer’ would only
require changes in the document indexes and meta-tags to display and retrieve
files in the new required structure. This modern system structure requires only
changes in the file classifications and not in the system’s framework. These
characteristics seem to classify this systems approach as a flexible system.
5.2.9. Root Definition
s
following composed root definitions.
The senior lecturer identifies in her/his root definition: “There is a need for an
information system to enhance workin
s
the system’s support function in its application but also with its focus on the Business
School’s core business, students learning.
The senior administrator composed her/his root definition as follows: “There is no clear
communicated and trained standard of usin
fi
92
92
needs to define and implement standards of using information
ystems but also set up introduction trainings for new staff members as a compulsory
f not utilising IT systems in the most effective way:
orking in an environment with no set standards of information storing and sharing
first: “There is a strong need to identify across AUT the users’
quirements for a file sharing system to be able to evaluate possibilities for changes
definition: “The current AUT governance needs to take more
sponsibility in terms of identifying and addressing IT issues for a better management
provides, at the same time, a justification for why most users use the systems as
examined above.
The senior manager (#1) exposes another issue in her/his root definition: “The
Business School
s
parameter within the Business School’s environment to standardise and maximise the
use of the information systems”.
The senior manager (#2) considers in her/his root definition a different angle which
might have caused the issues o
“W
enabled the creation of a culture in which users might have an oversized level of
freedom. Furthermore, the significant change from an Institute of Technology to a
University resulted in big internal and operational changes. These changes seem to
make the use of the current systems in their set up not flexible enough to adapt to new
requirements.”
The IT manager (#1) highlights in his root definition an urgent issue which might have
to be solved
re
on current systems or the need for a new system. However, in the first instance a
cultural change driven by executives within each faculty needs to occur otherwise any
changes on current systems or even the purchase of a new system will not be utilised
as conceptualised.”
Similar requests and identified issues are also a significant component of the IT
manager’s (#2) root
re
of information and knowledge and comply with forthcoming legislation changes. There
is also a strong need for authority changes between departments and business units.
IT issues and development needs should not be assessed by departments and the
EMT (Executive Management Team) but rather through the IT department itself as this
department has the most appropriate expertise in this sector.” The IT manager’s (#2)
addressed issues in her/his root definition clearly highlight the frustration of the
empowered IT department and lack of authority delegation and decision making to
departments with the required expertise.
93
93
Three questions arise out of the data collected in the CATWOE model and rich pictures
s follows:
1. To what extent does the current information architecture support and add value
2. What are the major issues highlighted in the respondents’ “Weltanschauung”?
3. user requirements will the current information
architecture and available IS support or hinder the accomplishment of the
Wit
School
availab he Business
chool needs an information architecture which affranchises its rich repository of
r the users to know in which IS
particular file can be found. Furthermore the Business School has not implemented
6. Discussion of Results
6.1. Findings
a
to the Business School?
Based on the identified
Business School’s mission statement (discussed in Chapter 3.2)?
h regard to the first of the three questions above, it appears that the Business
needs to empower its stakeholders by making data and information readily
le and to enhance its transformation into knowledge. Therefore t
S
stored information, documentation, policies, reports and research outputs and develop
an efficient working and information literate community.
The evaluation of the CATWOE model and rich pictures identified a number of major
issues with the current information architecture. It has been identified that the use of
four information systems to store files makes it difficult fo
a
standards for using the available IS nor for naming and storing files. It became
apparent overall that the importance of IT with its capabilities, and in particular its
influence on the Business School’s performance, might have been recognised but not
fully understood. It appears that the Business School develops its IT in a reactive
fashion rather than as a means of enhancing its overall performance. Further problems
will arise from the significantly increasing file storage costs triggered by the upcoming
introduction of the new public records act in 2010.
94
94
d IT require revision in order to
cilitate an information and knowledge sharing environment.
y issues arise from this
nalysis as follows:
ntly new staff members are more likely informally and briefly
introduced to available resources and, more importantly, to the system’s
2.
through newsletters and on an irregular basis in meetings.
3.
ent. However, as the IT manager (#2) argues, the IT department
4.
t. Furthermore, there appears to be also a problem with
Hence, the answer to the first question is that the current information architecture and
related policies and regulations for the use of IS an
fa
The second question targets the analysis of the interviewees’ “Weltanschauung”
examined in Checkland’s CATWOE model. A number of ke
a
1. It appears that sufficient staff IT training is lacking, particularly for new staff
members. Curre
capabilities.
Further weaknesses are the methods used for communicating and discussing IT
systems and developments. These issues and systems possibilities are
disseminated
Nevertheless the working attitude of many staff members seems to be somewhat
‘laissez faire’ as they hardly communicate their IT and IS requirements nor work
proactively on continuous improvement of utilising available IT resources in a more
efficient manner.
The IT department does not supply staff workstations with updated software and
hardware on a regular basis which may be a major barrier to a more efficient
working environm
has very little influence in driving developments or innovations. According to the IT
manager (#2), the power to drive IT developments lies with the Human Resources,
Finance, and Marketing Departments although this function lies outside of their field
of expertise. It is suggested, therefore, that the IT Department should be
empowered to assist in IT developments and governance. The author believes that
the AUT governance must drive IT developments with a higher priority but also
delegate authorities for developments to the departments and groups with the
appropriate expertise.
A further result of the findings seems to be one of the most significant. The lack of
set standards and regulations seems to provide staff members with a high level of
freedom in their outpu
managers adopting a “laissez faire” attitude towards accountability and the
monitoring of project outcomes which they have initiated. These performance
issues have a detrimental effect upon efficiency within the Faculty. Furthermore,
neither administrators nor managers want to be accountable for their output.
95
95
5.
sist in
The
org p
omplains in a certain way about the passive personal attitudes enhanced through the
to meet the user requirements. As
xamined in Chapter 5 most user requirements can be solved by “Novell GroupWise”.
The information systems are underutilised; the major cause being personal
attitudes and regulations which raise issues between several stakeholders and
frame the organisational culture and working environment. Therefore to as
answering question three (above), an Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) shown in
Figure 27 (below) is used as a data modelling tool to summarise the interview data
and to identify issues in the relationships amongst the interviewees. This process
has proved to enable a good analysis and highlight major issues in relationships.
issues identified and illustrated in Figure 27 (below) clearly highlight issues in the
anisational culture and refer to personal attitudes in the workplace. Each grou
c
high level of freedom given by managers and executives. Overall there is a
recognisable level of mistrust, disappointment, reproaches and anger towards the other
stakeholders. However, Figure 27 (below) also indicates that the managers realise
there are some major issues to be addressed.
Question three can therefore be answered that there is no need to evaluate whether
the current systems can be modified or not
e
However the Business School first needs to solve the issues caused by the
organisation’s culture. This might include delegating authority and implementing
regulations in order to improve management action. However, in a long term
perspective the Business School will need to take a holistic approach and change the
structure of the information architecture. The author considers a fully integrative,
embedded information architecture combined with the implementation of an ‘enterprise
document management system’ will meet all user requirements identified in Chapter 5.
96
96
IT M
anag
ers
Adm
inis
trat
or
Aca
dem
ic
staf
f
Seni
or M
anag
ers
AU
T G
over
nanc
e
not i
nves
tigat
ed
not in
vesti
gate
d
•Do
not p
rovi
de re
quire
d
data
base
s •N
o un
ders
tand
ing
of re
quire
d
info
rmat
ion
and
shar
ing
proc
esse
s
•Do
not
ask
for
acad
emic
use
r re
quire
men
ts
•Bad
co
mm
unic
atio
n
•Do
not u
nder
stan
d ac
adem
ic in
form
atio
n sh
arin
g pr
oces
ses
•Aca
dem
ics
are
not
in
volv
ed in
ISD
•No
train
ing
•No
info
rmat
ion
abou
t alte
rnat
ive
sy
stem
s
•Cre
ate
unne
cess
ary
dupl
icat
ions
of i
nfor
mat
ion
and
data
base
s
•No
train
ing
prov
ided
•Do
not w
ant
to
be
in
volv
ed
in IS
D
•Ten
d to
“joi
n th
e flo
w”i
nste
ad o
f m
akin
g a
diffe
renc
e
•“la
isse
z-fa
ire
attit
ude”
•Do
not k
now
thei
r po
sitio
n in
the
Busi
ness
Sch
ool’s
op
erat
iona
l cha
in
•Do
not
com
mun
icat
e th
eir n
eeds
•Bad
com
mun
icat
ion
of c
hang
es
•Hav
e to
use
IS
as
they
hav
e be
en to
ld to
do
•Do
not p
rovi
de
IS a
ltern
ativ
es
•Nee
d to
impl
emen
t sta
ndar
ds fo
r IS
use
•Driv
e IT
dev
elop
men
t•U
pdat
e P
C im
ages
mor
e re
gula
rly
•Pro
vide
IS tr
aini
ngs
•Be
acco
unta
ble
for i
nitia
ted
proj
ect
outc
omes•N
eed
to m
onito
r per
form
ance
s
•Sta
ff ha
ve a
to h
igh
leve
l of f
reed
om
•The
re is
no
effic
ienc
y ac
ross
the
AU
T
Adm
it: n
eed
topu
sh tr
aini
ng m
ore
•IT
does
not
hav
e th
e au
thor
ity to
pro
vide
IT
train
ing,
driv
e de
velo
pmen
ts
•Doe
s no
t rea
lise
the
impo
rtanc
e of
IT, i
.e. d
rive
in
form
atio
n m
anag
emen
t
•Nee
d de
lega
tion
of a
utho
ritie
s in
the
field
of
ex
perti
se
•nee
d to
be
mor
e pr
o-ac
tive
to e
nhan
ce
inno
vatio
ns
SM re
alis
e:
We
need
to
1.Im
plem
ent s
tand
ards
for I
S us
e2.
Impr
ove
our c
omm
unic
atio
n st
yles
3.Im
plem
ent a
nd m
ake
IT tr
aini
ng c
ompu
lsor
y4.
Res
truct
ure
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
5.E
mpo
wer
end
use
rs b
ut m
onito
r ind
ivid
ual
perfo
rman
ces
6.C
hang
e at
titud
e: fr
om k
eepi
ng u
p to
kee
ping
ahe
ad
of IT
dev
elop
men
ts
IT M
anag
ers
IT M
anag
ers
Adm
inis
trat
or
Adm
inis
trat
or
Aca
dem
ic
staf
fA
cade
mic
st
aff
Seni
or M
anag
ers
AU
T G
over
nanc
eA
UT
Gov
erna
nce
not i
nves
tigat
ed
not in
vesti
gate
d
•Do
not p
rovi
de re
quire
d
data
base
s •N
o un
ders
tand
ing
of re
quire
d
info
rmat
ion
and
shar
ing
proc
esse
s
•Do
not
ask
for
acad
emic
use
r re
quire
men
ts
•Bad
co
mm
unic
atio
n
•Do
not u
nder
stan
d ac
adem
ic in
form
atio
n sh
arin
g pr
oces
ses
•Aca
dem
ics
are
not
in
volv
ed in
ISD
•No
train
ing
•No
info
rmat
ion
abou
t alte
rnat
ive
sy
stem
s
•Cre
ate
unne
cess
ary
dupl
icat
ions
of i
nfor
mat
ion
and
data
base
s
•No
train
ing
prov
ided
•Do
not w
ant
to
be
in
volv
ed
in IS
D
•Ten
d to
“joi
n th
e flo
w”i
nste
ad o
f m
akin
g a
diffe
renc
e
•“la
isse
z-fa
ire
attit
ude”
•Do
not k
now
thei
r po
sitio
n in
the
Busi
ness
Sch
ool’s
op
erat
iona
l cha
in
•Do
not
com
mun
icat
e th
eir n
eeds
•Bad
com
mun
icat
ion
of c
hang
es
•Hav
e to
use
IS
as
they
hav
e be
en to
ld to
do
•Do
not p
rovi
de
IS a
ltern
ativ
es
•Nee
d to
impl
emen
t sta
ndar
ds fo
r IS
use
•Driv
e IT
dev
elop
men
t•U
pdat
e P
C im
ages
mor
e re
gula
rly
•Pro
vide
IS tr
aini
ngs
•Be
acco
unta
ble
for i
nitia
ted
proj
ect
outc
omes•N
eed
to m
onito
r per
form
ance
s
•Sta
ff ha
ve a
to h
igh
leve
l of f
reed
om
•The
re is
no
effic
ienc
y ac
ross
the
AU
T
Adm
it: n
eed
topu
sh tr
aini
ng m
ore
•IT
does
not
hav
e th
e au
thor
ity to
pro
vide
IT
train
ing,
driv
e de
velo
pmen
ts
•Doe
s no
t rea
lise
the
impo
rtanc
e of
IT, i
.e. d
rive
in
form
atio
n m
anag
emen
t
•Nee
d de
lega
tion
of a
utho
ritie
s in
the
field
of
ex
perti
se
•nee
d to
be
mor
e pr
o-ac
tive
to e
nhan
ce
inno
vatio
ns
SM re
alis
e:
We
need
to
1.Im
plem
ent s
tand
ards
for I
S us
e2.
Impr
ove
our c
omm
unic
atio
n st
yles
3.Im
plem
ent a
nd m
ake
IT tr
aini
ng c
ompu
lsor
y4.
Res
truct
ure
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
5.E
mpo
wer
end
use
rs b
ut m
onito
r ind
ivid
ual
perfo
rman
ces
6.C
hang
e at
titud
e: fr
om k
eepi
ng u
p to
kee
ping
ahe
ad
of IT
dev
elop
men
ts
FIGURE 27 Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD)
97
97
6.2. Contributions and Implications
As AUT has been identified in Chapter 3 as a primarily relationship driven organisation
with the purpose of dealing with knowledge, recommendations in this section consider
challenges which arise with breadth and complexity of the involved organisation’s
functions and personalities. The following three questions will guide the identification of
recommendations which strive to develop and resource a cultural strategy addressing
the identified issues and support considerations for a new information architecture.
1. How might the information architecture be modified to ensure the achievement
of the identified user requirements?
2. What are the recommendations?
3. What are the proposed cultural considerations and actions?
Checkland’s proposed and examined conceptual model (Chapter 4) has been used to
answer question one (above). Figure 28 (below) shows a conceptual model proposing
file classifications through ‘meta-tags’ in the ‘document index’ in a new ‘enterprise
document management system’. In this model any user can create files and store them
through the classification i.e. with its title, keywords, by author etc. as public, read only
or confidential data, in one single big system on AUT’s network server. The ‘search’
function will allow retrieval of stored files through its classification. This proposed
concept will enable all users to gain access to all created information in the Business
School and create a knowledge sharing environment. Although all files are stored in
one single place and therefore accessible to all users, the file classification as
‘confidential’ or ‘read only’ will provide the user protection of their created files against
unwanted files access.
98
98
FIGURE 28 Conceptual model of a new file sharing system
Table 7 (below) illustrates the evaluation of the identified users’ requirements for a file
sharing information system with the above proposed conceptual model. The evaluation
shows that the proposed conceptual model will meet the identified user requirements.
However, two of the users’ systems requirements shown in Table 7, “accessibly from
outside AUT” and “track changes” can not be evaluated at this point. As examined in
Chapter 5 these requirements depend on other components provided from AUT’s IT
department i.e. the creation of a ‘virtual desktop’.
99
99
Evaluation of identified user requirements with the proposed conceptual model
1. Systems accessible from outside AUT
??
2. Decentralised folder access control by the end user
3. Classification of files (private, public or confidential)
4. Search function + view keyword related files
5. Display author of the file
6. Automatic and chronological file archiving
7. Version control of stored files
8. Track changes (who modified and saved the file)
9. Files need to be stored in one system
10. System needs to be flexible for changes in the Business School
??
TABLE 7 Evaluation of identified user requirements with the proposed conceptual model
To answer question two, the following recommendations are made on the basis of the
above analysis:
1. There is a need for a change in culture to create an information and knowledge
sharing environment in which data will be accessible from multiple perspectives. As
shown in Figure 29 (below) the first recommendation addresses the senior
management. In order to ensure a successful change in the Business School’s
culture and freedom of its staff members the senior managers need to concentrate
more consistently on the issues addressed (Chapter 6.1) and in particular start to
take actions. These actions need to be carried out from a top down principle, not
from a control perspective but more from the communication style.
2. In the second step all staff members need to be encouraged to express their IS
requirements and in particular work more proactively towards developments and
innovations.
3. The Business School’s managers and executives need to implement standards for
using the information systems as well as for naming and storing files. Although a
working group initiated by the AUT has been investigating records management for
18 months yet no standards have been defined and disseminated. Hence,
100
100
individually identified and implemented standards are seen as better than working
without any standards.
4. After implementing these standards the senior management needs to introduce
compulsory IT and IS training to existing staff and, more importantly, to all new staff
members to ensure the defined standards are communicated and performances
can be monitored. In the fourth step the communication method of informing staff
members about IT and IS issues, possibilities and alternatives need to be changed
from a passive approach through newsletters to a more active approach i.e. regular
training sessions.
5. The senior managers need to ensure the Business School’s executives understand
the importance and need to drive IT developments with a higher priority. In this
phase the executives need to understand how critical efficient IT and IS use can be
for the organisation’s success. IT and IS developments need to be driven with the
approach of “being one step ahead” instead of “only trying to keep up” with
students’ and competitors’ developments.
6. The sixth and final step incorporates the implementation of an ‘enterprise document
management system’ to meet the user requirements identified in Chapter 5.
1
Change communicationmethods
2
Implement standards forusing IS, make IT training
compolsury
3 Encourage staff members tobe proactive and innovative
4
Management needsto focus and takeactions
5
6
Implement an “Enterprise Document Management System”
Successful creation of an information and
knowledge sharingenvironment
Executives needto drive IT developments
Recommendations for a cultural change to enhance information management
1
Change communicationmethods
2
Implement standards forusing IS, make IT training
compolsury
3 Encourage staff members tobe proactive and innovative
4
Management needsto focus and takeactions
5
6
Implement an “Enterprise Document Management System”
Successful creation of an information and
knowledge sharingenvironment
Executives needto drive IT developments
Recommendations for a cultural change to enhance information management
FIGURE 29 Recommendations to create an information and knowledge sharing environment
101
101
The following examination of cultural considerations and actions will answer question
three. In order to carry out the above proposed recommendations a formal
communication plan needs to be developed to ensure awareness but also to facilitate
the dissemination of the proposed changes to all staff members. It is necessary to
make clear to all stakeholders that appropriate sharing of data, information and
knowledge has a collegial benefit. Clear communication of the benefits to individuals
and groups is a key factor to avoid staff’s rejection and encourage them to an active
collaboration. The election of a strong visible sponsorship, but also with a strong,
structured and focused management, to drive this initiative determines a further key
success factor.
As “management knowledge”, “research knowledge” and “teaching and learning
knowledge” have been identified in Chapter 3 as the Business School’s core
knowledge assets, the following section proposes recommendations for actions to be
taken in each of these areas.
Actions for Management
1. Establish governance arrangements for restructuring information
management at the Business School
2. Map the current information flow and identify gaps
3. Implement standards for using IS, and introduce compulsory IT trainings for
existing and new staff members
4. Implement standards for naming files within the Business School, to work
towards the records management and Public Records Act
5. Where possible, store information in a central integrated administrative
system
Actions for Research
The following actions are proposed to provide researchers with an infrastructure which
enables global collaborative research through seamless and cost-effective access to
information they need:
102
102
1. Include and provide in the new information architecture a range of library
information resources appropriate to research
2. Provide in the new information architecture institutional repositories of
published research outputs
3. Develop standards and good practices for sharing research data
4. Provide IT helpdesk support for the management of stored research
information
5. Provide an information architecture to enhance information literacy tailored
to research needs
Actions for Learning and Teaching
The following actions are proposed to provide an infrastructure which supports
seamless integration of learning resources to enable collaborative learning and provide
students and staff members with required skills to work in a knowledge society:
1. Provide an information management which enhances innovative
contributions to learning and teaching
2. Provide collaborative information exchanges during teaching sessions
3. Introduce a content management system using meta-tags to provide easy
access to learning and teaching resources
6.3. Validating the Research Model
To evaluate the users’ requirements for a suitable file sharing information system, in
the first instance the decision had to be made as to whether this research was going to
be carried out from a quantitative or qualitative perspective. This study attempted to
identify the user requirements through an in depth analysis of the users’ intentions and
perceptions of their work environment. In particular this goal identified the qualitative
methodology as the more appropriate approach. Within the wide range of the available
qualitative approaches the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) combined with
Checkland’s proposed CATWOE model and rich picture approach provided the most
suitable tools. In particular the CATWOE model enabled the interviewees to express
their perception of their current work environment and highlight in particular in their
“Weltanschauung” issues which need to be addressed in the development of a new
103
103
information system. Using rich pictures enabled the interviewees to express their work
environment and use of the systems graphically but also helped them to formulate, at
the end of the interviews, in one sentence a root definition to express their major issues
in utilising existing information systems in their environment. As this research turned
out not to be an explicit systems evaluation but more an evaluation of issues between
several stakeholders within the Business School, the chosen research model seems to
be the most appropriate tool.
The joint application development (JAD), in combination with the prototype
development, has been recommended in Chapter 2 as the most appropriate
development method. Taking the data analysis and findings into consideration affirms
this initial recommendation. In particular the JAD approach, with its group meetings and
working groups, will enhance the given recommendations and actions to solve the
identified relationship issues and create a collaborative ISD environment. It is believed
that continuing to express conceptual models in rich pictures as proposed in the
prototyping approach will ensure a successful ISD of an ‘enterprise document
management system’.
6.4. Limitations and Implications for further Research
The small sample size of only six interviewees is probably one of the biggest limitations
in this study. Although some stakeholders are represented by two interviewees other
stakeholders are only represented by one respondent or even not considered at all.
Furthermore, the interviews have been conducted on a one by one basis. Group
interviews might have increased the confidence of some interviewees to raise issues
as they might have felt more supported within a group of people with the same issues
and perceptions. Group interviews might also have provided a much better foundation
for collaborative engagement.
A further significant limitation might be the bias of the information provided by the
interviewees. As the researcher is also a staff member at the Business School and
known by most of the interviewees, the quality of the research output was certainly
enhanced. The interviewees might not have told an external researcher about internal
relationships issues or constraints in the work environment. The personality and
relationship of the researcher to each interviewee might also have affected the level of
insight knowledge provided to the research.
104
104
Asking the interviewees to draw their rich picture on a blank piece of paper certainly
provided the widest possible scope of data collection as every interviewee had been
given the opportunity to drive the content of the interview towards their personal beliefs
and issues. However, not confronting the respondents with the previous created rich
pictures might have been a missed opportunity to build on already existing knowledge
to identify issues in a collaborative examined environment.
The last considered limitation is based on the chosen CATWOE model. Although
Checkland proposed this model he admits that the CATWOE model can only be used if
the researcher is integrated in the organisation or institution, as this model requires
mostly sensitive information.
One of the implications of this study for further research is the cognition that the JAD
and Prototype systems development approach should be carried forward to identify
user requirements across AUT but also to develop conceptual models for the
implementation of a new file sharing information system. Furthermore, the Business
School needs to use the opportunities of JAD approach and work closely with AUT’s
records management work group to identify file naming and storage standards. Further
study should also investigate the new Public Records Act and its influence on the
development of an information system at the Business School. Continuous
investigations should also be done on the implications of the information system
development at the Business School with the framework and programme of AUT’s
Knowledge Management group.
105
105
7. Conclusion
Developing a file sharing information system for the Business School will be, as in any
other organisation within the dynamically changing tertiary sector, a big challenge. The
implementation of a new information system, i.e. an ‘enterprise document management
system’ will have to deal with the complexities of the Business School across teaching,
learning, research and administrative functions. The biggest challenge might be the
necessity of finding a software solution which serves these three core assets equally
but meets also all their individual requirements.
The following sections will summarise the research findings and will also highlight the
most important implications for the Business School’s Management.
7.1. Summary of Research Findings
Evaluating all conducted CATWOE models, rich pictures and root definitions makes it
very clear that initial discussions with the Business School’s management about
conducting a study to evaluate the information systems’ capabilities and the need for
modifications was at this stage premature.
The analysis of the findings in Chapter 6 clarifies that the Business School’s issue of
not sharing files and documents in the most efficient and effective manner is not
caused through using inappropriate or incapable systems. As illustrated in Figure 27
(above) the identified issues are founded in the organisation’s culture, with its lack of
setting operational standards and regulations, but also with its high level of freedom for
staff members which might have enhanced the identified relationship issues between
several stakeholders. It is most likely that these identified issues in the organisation’s
culture resulted in available IT resources and capabilities not being used to their
maximum potential. As examined and outlined in Chapter 5, most identified user
requirements can be solved by “Novell GroupWise”. Hence, there is no need to modify
any of the current information systems. The Business School needs to first solve these
cultural issues not only to increase the use of the current available system but also to
enable, in a longer term perspective, the implementation of a new ‘enterprise document
management system’.
106
106
Table 8 (below) links the research findings with the initial proposed research aims and
highlights the achievement of all four proposed goals.
Evaluation of the proposed research aims
Proposed research aims should
Status
1. have defined which information has to be shared
2. define the users’ system requirements
3. identify current technical restrictions of sharing information
4. highlight possible modifications of currently used Information Systems
or identify whether a new Information System has to be purchased to
meet the defined user requirements
TABLE 8 Evaluation of the proposed research aims
7.2. Implications for Management
To show, as a university, leadership in developing an information system to enable the
preservation and distribution of information in order to produce knowledge but also to
show greater responsibility in the transformation to a knowledge society, the Business
School’s management needs, in the first instance, to understand the importance of
carrying out actions immediately to enable a quick change of the identified cultural
issues. The imperative need for these immediate actions is in particular founded in
aligning the new information architecture with the new Public Records Act by 2010. To
enhance these changes it is recommended that standards and regulations for using IT
and IS are implemented, compulsory and regular IT and IS training sessions are
introduced, restructure responsibilities and authorities are restructured towards a more
expertise related approach and, most importantly, the communication style is changed
from a passive to a more proactive approach.
29, 883 words
(excluding preamble, tables and appendices)
(Adelman, 2003), (Angehrn, 1997), (Liebowitz, 2000) (Back, 2005) (Muthukumar, 2005)
(Laudon, 2002) (Nykamp, 1991)
107
107
8. References
AACSB International. (2007a). Accreditation. Retrieved 25.09.2007, 2007, from
http://www.aacsb.edu/AACSB International. (2007b). Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for
Business Accreditation.Unpublished manuscript, Tampa, FL 33602-5730 USA. Adelman, S. (2003). Impossible Data Warehouse Situations. New York: Addison
Wesley. Alter, S. (1996). Information Systems - A Management Perspective. New York: The
Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. Alter, S. (1999). Information Systems - A Management Perspective (3rd ed.). New
York: Addison Wesley Longman. Angehrn, A. (1997). Designing Mature Internet Business Strategies: The ICDT model.
European Management Journal 15(4), 361-1369. Auckland University of Technology. (2006). Annual Report 2006 (Report). Auckland. Auckland University of Technology. (2007). Knowledge Management. Retrieved
05.10.2007, 2007, from http://www.aut.ac.nz/staff/knowledge_management/Back, A., Krogh von Georg, Seufert, Andreas, Enkel Ellen (2005). Puting Knowledge
Networks into Action. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information
retrieval. Canadian journal of information science, 5, 133-143. Beynon-Davis, P., Owens, Ian, Williams, Michael D., . (2004). Information systems
evaluation and the information systems development process. The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17(4), 276-282.
Bryman, A., and Bell, Emma. (2003). Business research methods. New York: Oford University Press.
Brynjolfson, E. (1993). The productivity paradox of information technology. Comm. ACM, 36(12), 66-67.
Checkland P, a., Poulter, J,. (2006). Learning for Action - A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Checkland, P., and Holwell, S. (1998). Information, Systems and Information Systems. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Checkland P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practise - Includes a 30-year retrospective. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.
Chowdhury, G. G. (1999). Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. London: Library Association Publishing.
Clark, T. (2005). Storage - Virtualization - Technologies for simplifying data storage and managment. Indiana, United States: Pearson Education inc.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in theory and practice: Elsevier Inc. Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation, Reengeniering Work through Information
Technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Deloitte & Touche. (1998). Information Technology Controll Guidelines (3 ed.). Toronto:
The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Derry, S. J. (1999). A Fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In A.
M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds). DSDM Consortium. (2007). The essential introduction to DSDM. Retrieved October
2007, 2007, from www.dsdm.orgElliott, G. (2004). Global Business Information Technology - An Integrated Systems
Approach. London: Pearson Education Ltd. Elliott, G., and Starkings, S. (1998). Business Information Technology - Systems,
Theory and Practice. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Gill, S. L. (1988). File Management and Information Retrieval Systems (2nd ed.).
Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited Inc. .
108
108
Gordon, J. R., Gordon, Steven R. (1999). Information Systems - A management Approach (second edition ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company
Healy, S. (2001). ISO 15489 Records Management - its development and significance. Records Management Journal, 11(3), 133-142.
Hicks, J. O. J. (1990). Information Systems in Business: An Introduction (2nd ed.). New York: West Publishing Company.
Jessup, L. M., Valacich, Joseph S., . (1999). Information Systems Foundation. Indianapolis: Robert Linksey.
Jones, C. (1993). Sick Software. Computerworld 115-116. Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. New York:
Routledge. Laudon, K. C., Laudon Jane P. (2002). Management Information Systems (7th edition
ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Liebowitz, J. (2000). Building organisational Intelligence - A Knowledge Management
Primer. New York: CRC Press LLC. Lybrand, C. a. (1996). Managing Information and System Risks: Results of an
International Survery of Large Organisations, Technical Report. McMahon, M. (1997, December). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Web - A
Paradigm for Learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE, Perth, Australia. McNurlin, B., Sprague, Jr., Ralph H.,. (1989). Information Systems Management in
Practice. Sigapore: Prentice-Hall International Editions. Muthukumar, J. G. H. (2005). A knowledge management technology architecture for
educational research organisations: Scaffolding research projects and workflow processing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 379.
Nair, M. (1999). Activity-Based Information System. New York: John Wiley & Sons INC. Neo, B. S. (1991). Information Technology and global competition: A framework for
analysis. Information & Management 20(30), 151-160. Nickerson, R. C. (1998). Business and Information Systems. New York: Electronic
Publisher Services Inc. . Nickerson, R. C. (2001). Business and Information Systems (2nd edition ed.). New
Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Nonaka, I., Ryoko, T., Noboru, K. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of
dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-32. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr. (1992). Build and learn, evaluate and learn. Informatica, 1(1), 1-6. Nykamp, S., and Magalitta, Joseph,. (1991). Software speeder-uppers. Computerworld,
51, 53. O'Brien, J. A. (2004). Management Information Systems (Vol. 6th edition). New York:
George Wertham O'Brien, J. A., Marakas, George M. (2007). Introduction to Information Systems (13th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Oz, E. (2006). Management Information Systems (5th ed.). Canada: Thomson Course
Technology. Patching, D. (1990). Practical Soft Systems Analysis London: Pitman Publishing Pidd, M. (2004). Systems Modelling - Theory and Practise. Chichester, England: John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd. . Probst, G., Raub, Steffen, Romhardt, Kai. (1998). Managing Knowledge - Buliding
Blocks for Success. New York: John Wiley& Sons LTD. Purba, S. (2000). Data Management (3rd edition ed.). London: Auerbach Publications. Rollett, H. (2003). Knowledge Management - Processes and Technologies. United
States of America: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Schultheis, R., Sumner, Mary. (1995). Management Information Systems - The
Manager's View (3 rd ed.). Boston: Richard D. Irwin INC. Sundaram, D., Portougal, Victor. (2006). Business Processes - Operational solutions
for SAP Implementation. London: IRM Press.
109
109
Taylor Chudnow, C. (2003). File Systems and Storage. Computer Technology Review, 23(7), 30.
Teng, J. T. C., Grover, V. and Fiedler, K. D. (1994). Redesigning business processes using IT. Long Range Planning, 27(1).
Ward, J., Griffiths, Pat. (2000). Strategic Planning for Information Systems (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Wilson, B. (1984). Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications Willey. Chichester.
110
110
Appendices Appendix 1 AACSB International accreditation process
Source: (AACSB International, 2007a)
111
111
112
112
113
113
Appendix 2 Interview records – Academic staff member, Senior Lecturer
Interviewee: Academic staff member
C Clients
- colleagues of the same or different discipline - colleagues who teach the same paper - Programmes Administration Manager - administrators
A Actor
- Senior Lecturer and Scheduling Manager, Business Interdisciplinary Studies (BI)
T Transformations
a) Create, store and share information in a “multiple discipline environment”
- student assessments - study guides - student performances (marks, process…) - lesson plans - samples of student work - historical information
b) Share study guides, study curriculum within the same discipline c) Distribute student marks to “Programme Administration Team”, Discipline
Chairs or Director of Business Interdisciplinary Studies
W Weltanschauung
- The perception of creating information/information systems which is
not wanted by other stakeholders - In return the appropriate information systems are not provided - Indicated reasons could be:
• cost • lack of communication between. allied staff and academics
to examine requirements • no understanding of the information sharing processes
between academics • no involvement of academics in the IS development.
academics don’t have time or want to be involved
O Owner/s
- Programmes Administration Manager - Business School Executives - Law - Director of Business Interdisciplinary Studies - Discipline Chairs - IT Department
E Environment
- Law (Privacy Act, legal storage of student work) - Administrative regulations and restrictions - University exam board (scaling of marks) - Need to fit as a discipline in the constraints of the other disciplines - NZICA have curriculum requirements
114
114
115
115
Appendix 3 Interview records – Senior Administrator
Interviewee: Senior Administrator
C Clients
- Academics - Administrators - Line Managers, School Managers - Executives ( Dean, Dep. Dean)
A Actor
- Executive Assistant to Dean, AUT Business School & Pro Vice-Chancellor International AUT University
T Transformation
1. Travel documents, sent via e mail, hard copies 2. PA support, i.e. all diary duties and managing appointments 3. HR information
- monitor and manage recording of staff leave - monitor time schedules for staff performance reviews - monitor and control for School Managers the relocation expenses - for new academic staff members
4. Documents - manage documents for job advertisements/recruitments - documents are e-mailed to a group of clients, if changes occur
they e-mail this file back. The administrator is then doing all single changes manually.
- Documents are mainly shared via e-mail, some general information is shared on the I-drive and some as hard copies.
- Files are stored in the mail box and personal share drive
W Weltanschauung
- Only use e-mailing to share files, result of mistrust of security of
I-drive - Perception of personal best practice of storing files in personal drives - History of frustration / apathy - standard best practice / join the flow - being told by their “owner” to use particular systems - lack of knowledge of other systems - lack of competent training on how to use other systems
O Owners
- IT - Faculty Manager - Registrar - Resource Manager - Line Managers - HR - Executives
E Environment
- Law ( collective agreement, privacy policy) - AUT Governance - IT Resources - Time - IT Support
116
116
117
117
Appendix 4 Interview records – Senior manager (#1)
Interviewee: Senior manager (#1)
C Clients
- Administrators - Academics - IT-Department - Procurement - Finance Department
A Actor
- Faculty Resource Manager
T Transformation
- Health and Safety (HR Department) via e-mail, shared folder in
GroupWise - Procurement via e-mail, shared folder on I-drive - Asset inventory, via e-mail to Finance department - Resource database management
W Weltanschauung
- Staff do not ask for possibilities, so they did not get - There is no training for existing or new staff, - There are no standards for using IS - Trainings and standards need to be compulsory - The use of the IS is not clear to many users - IT has to push more innovations, re-image PCs regularly - Need a new communication policy - Users start to create own ways of storing and naming files - Standards for naming files need to be defined - Dean needs to drive the use of IT devices to be one step ahead
instead of just trying to “keep up” - The BS has to spend money to make money - Too many systems exist at the AUT containing the same
information – need only one place for information storage
O Owners
- Resource Manager - Faculty Manager - School Managers
E Environment
- Technology - Legislation - Government - Students - Banks - Global Market Competitors
118
118
119
119
Appendix 5 Interview records – Senior manager (#2)
Interviewee: Senior manager (#2)
C Clients
- Registrar - Dean + Dep. Dean - Administrators - School Managers - Finance Manager
A Actor
- Faculty Manager
T Transformation
- EFTS forecast information (from Admin to Dean, Finance
Manager). Saved each time in personal D-drives - Programme development information. Templates from intranet,
sent within a group via e mail, saved individually - Monitor staff leave, on I-drive - Promotions, some on hard copy some on I-drive - Summer School info i.e. booklet, staff hand book - Changes to programmes, share with Registrar, on I-drive - Most information is shared via e-mail and then stored on
individual drives, the final version is then saved on I-drive
W Weltanschauung
- There is not sufficient training in IT and IS use - Most new staff join the flow - Centralised I-drive, too difficult to get access to folders - AUT does not protect intercultural property - Most do not know how to use IS in a better way - Sharing information needs to be decentralised - I-drive is primarily used, as everyone else uses this, but is not
effective - Need to decentralise access giving but set standards - BS is relationship driven rather then operation or result driven - Every staff member should be involved in addressing issues - Maybe reward good collaboration - Not everyone knows his position in the BS operational chain - Vision: implement GDA public record act, naming standards - Move away from I-drive - Stakeholders should be given access to files individually - All information and files in one big “pot”. Only classify
confidential data - Benchmark with other universities
O Owners
- Faculty Manager - Dean + Dep. Dean - Resource Manager - All staff/users at the Business School, responsibility to improve
activities and processes
E Environment
- Diversity within teams, different perceptions of their role - Not sufficient adoption of IT resources / possibilities to share
knowledge
120
120
121
121
Appendix 6 Interview records – IT manager (#1)
Interviewee: IT manager (#1)
C Clients
- other IT Managers - administrators - Systems and Business Analysts - IT Service Director - internal / External Suppliers - other departments across AUT as customers - project teams (created by topics of interest) - working groups e.g. Knowledge Management group
A Actor
- IS Manager
T Transformation
- Monitor projects (i.e. academic timetabling), with administrators,
Systems and Business Analysts, via e-mail, I-drive, I-tool - With other Managers, topics of interests, e.g. information
architecture, e-mail + I-drive - With IT Service Director departmental issues, budget, HR… I-drive
and e-mails - Internal customers/other departments, e-mail - Project teams, project steering committee and working groups,
project details, I-tool and I-drive - Information is shared on I-drive by project - Drafts are e mailed, and then published and stored on I drive - I-tool is used to monitor progress in projects, not to share files
W Weltanschauung
- Need to use top down Principle to change culture and freedom, not
about control - its more about communication - There is no added value to centralise upload of information and
access giving. It should link to the system - Issue: most managers do not want to be accountable for project
outcomes, there is even no monitoring/reward - There is no efficiency because no one wants to be accountable,
scared of change - Each project needs a competent sponsor / project leader - AUT has a commercial pressure to be efficient, but has, compared to
other universities, the lowest admin/academic ratio - Compared to other universities AUT integrates all faculties and works
more as a unit - Strong need for good IS tools as AUT is a big organisation and even
geographical split in many campuses
O Owners
- IS Manager - IT Service Director - AUT Governance
E Environment
- E.M.T - Senior Management of the AUT - Commercial pressure for efficiency
122
122
123
123
Appendix 7 Interview records – IT manager (#2)
Interviewee: IT manager (#2)
C Clients
- IT Strategy staff members - other departments at AUT on project groups - working groups (e.g. academic portfolio, information architecture)
A Actor
- IT Strategy Manager
T Transformation
- project documents, shared within the department through
GroupWise - policy development documents, with other IT Managers, Directors
and Executives, vie e-mail, final version is then published on Knowledge Base
- little finance and departmental budgeting, with Director, via e-mail, stored in GroupWise
- IT processes + practices, worked with other IT-S staff on drafts saved in GroupWise, final version is then disseminated on Knowledge Base
W Weltanschauung
- Staff training by the IT staff was not allowed by CEPD (Centre for
Educational & Professional Development) - IT is not pushing staff training enough - Some departments, such as HR, do not collaborate, i.e. for “IT user
licence” - Not using IS in an efficient way results in high intangible costs - AUT governance does not understand the growing importance of
using IT effectively and efficiently - There is no delegating governance at AUT, + they need to drive
implementation of a “business enterprise architecture and information management with best practice”
- File storage costs are increasing exponential, $250,000 (2008). $1.5 Mil (2010) and entire AUT revenue by 2026
- Network building becomes cheaper, 10 GB downstream broadband, home 2 MB, I-drive 0.5 Terra Bite
- IT department has no power, HR, etc. develop with IS team business cases for new developments, IT-S is then only hosting/monitoring the development
- Wiki-Software was build into AUT to meet internal needs - first need a good information management then KM possible - Have to stop sharing files via e-mail, because public record act
requires the storage of e-mails. Will cause storage problems - The ‘enterprise document management system’ will meet the
identified user requirements
O Owners
- IT Strategy team - E.M.T. (Executive Management Team) - Departments (Finance, HR, Marketing…)
E Environment
- E.M.T. (Executive Management Team) - Departments - Law ( public record acts)
124
124
